Kabbalah/Tree of Life system... and Tarot

Fulgour

Nuts to Naples

I'm always (happily) reminded that I'm not a historian
when I relaize how refreshing it is to ignore Crowley.
 

Moonbow

I'm thankful for all comments and opinions whether historians, non-historians, Crowley, Father Christmas or Uncle Tom Cobley. That's what I asked for and I suspect there are others on the site who also would like to know this. All I ask is that people tell me 'why'. Why the system they use was chosen by them. For the moment I am not associating any cards with the Tree of Life until I know more about the Tree of Life, and I suspect that may take me quite some time.

... and Fulgour you are an historian (ok with a special little slant). :)
 

Moonbow

Llynn, thank you very much for your book recommendations; it’s the second time in this thread that RJ Stewart's The Miracle Tree has been mentioned too. It seems that I will have to read a few more books before I can find myself knowledgeable enough to form an opinion.

In all of my studies, on various subjects, of a spiritual nature, I find they all have similarities. And, what is also becoming clear is the need to study each one in their own right and independently of each other; to then be able to integrate them (if wanted).

Thank you for the link jmd, I've also read on Aeclectic about your study of the Tree of Life in its reversed state. That is perhaps a little too difficult for me to grasp at this stage. I will need to think on this more, and at a later stage, when I have read more on the Kabbalah.
 

jmd

I personally tend to not talk of the Tree of Life in any inversed state.

Perhaps I may have been misunderstood, or an image misunderstood (or I may have misunderstood what is being mentioned).

Depictions of the Tree of Life are said to have its 'root' in the heavens - ie, above - unlike Trees on Earth that have their roots 'below' (ie, in the ground). In that sense only can the Tree of Life be described as 'inversed'.

(There is also, to be sure, what is described as a 'negative' or 'Klipotic' Tree formed of the broken shells of an earlier manifestion, unable to contain the strength of the light on its descent. That is an entirely different type of 'study'.)

The Tree of Life is quite independent of Tarot, and those who have made links between the two have done so in a variety of ways. For example, some place the first ten cards of the Atouts, in order from I through to X, within the Sefirot. Others assign various connections to the Sefirot (some 16, others 22, others yet other number), and place thereon either the Atouts via a further correlation to Hebrew letters, and these placed in various ways on these added 'paths'.

The letters themselves, and their connection to the Tree of Life, is what is often used as a means by which to place the Atouts. However, as mentioned above, this need not be so, as Wirth shows.

Really, there are three separate things that need to here be considered - and, I would suggest, considered separately!

On the one hand the model(s) of the Tree of Life; on another the letters of the Hebrew alphabet; and on a third (yea... I know... we only have two hands!) the Atouts.

How and IF each of these three has any connection with any of the other remains to be investigated without, in a view, a presumption that there is such connection.

It could be, for example, that the Hebrew letters have more in common with the Tree of Knowledge than they have with the Tree of Life.
 

bradford

Fulgour said:
I'm always (happily) reminded that I'm not a historian
when I relaize how refreshing it is to ignore Crowley.

How come? I certainly don't think Crowley had all or most of the answers.
And even on the Minors Waite had lots of insights that Crowley couldn't touch.
Still, he added much to the study of Tarot. And he wove some creative new links to QBLH too.
Isn't "to ignore" the root of ignorance?
 

Moonbow

I didn't misunderstand you jmd, I read the link and saw that the roots were upwards in the realm of the Divine. What I meant, and probably didn't write coherently, was that the Tree of Life is reverted (inverted) in relation to how most of us think of trees, with the roots rooted in the ground and not in the air. The glyph for the Tree of Life gives no indication at to where the roots are... unless you are perhaps already familiar with this subject.

I don't agree that depictions of the Tree of Life are said to have their roots in the heavens, most depcitions I have seen have their roots downwards, other than the one you have linked. In meditation I tend to ascent towards the Divine from where I am.... on the ground (rooted if you like). So perhaps you can see why ascending to the roots seems a little too different to what I am used to and will take a while to grasp. But this is all part of learning about the Tree of Life and I'm happy that you explained this.
 

Fulgour

authentic scholarship vs the pretenders

Hello :) Bradford! I'd be namedropping to list
all the authors, before and after those guys,
and it is amazing how clearly they wrote too.
 

bradford

Fulgour said:
Hello :) Bradford! I'd be namedropping to list
all the authors, before and after those guys,
and it is amazing how clearly they wrote too.

Hi Fulgour

I've wrestled with similar issues with my Yijing studies.
Besides studying the book in Chinese, I collected and forced
myself to read well over a hundred books in English, and even
a few in Portuguese. A lot of that was really painfully bad. But if
I wanted to be thorough and be sure I hadn't missed any insights
that someone might have had even by accident, I just had to
suck it up and plough through everything (twice), for the future
benefit of whoever might use my work

I'm in sort of the same position again with Tarot. My Tarot
bibliography (posted on my website) also runs to more than a
hundred books. I still need to go back through them to pick up
my margin notes before organizing my thoughts, and I will be
well reminded of the ones that ought never have been written.
But I will also be reminded of the whole point of "aeclecticism",
or Za Jia, The Miscellaneous School. In the least of those books,
all covered with new age slobber and drool, there will be a gem
somewhere. But there will be many gems only partly obscured
by Crowley's horrific ego. You just have to pay close attention to
that man behind the curtain.
 

SittingIdiot

Searching

Moon Shadow

I share your feelings of frustration with GD asphyxiation; even Robert Wang's very well-done book is consumed by it.

I first became interested in Cabala Tarot after reading Christine Payne-Twoler's "The Underground Stream". In this book, she (BRIEFLY) describes several Cabala schemas, including the "GRA" Tree [from the scholar, the Vilna Goan, or Goan Rabbi Elijah, the guy who excommunicated the Baal Shem Tov!]. The 'GRA' Tree is shaped differently from the Ari's Tree; in the GRA Tree, there are three complete triangles and no "great abyss" (between Kether and Tiphareth), envisioning a more perfect spiritual plane, uncorrupted by "the fall" as the Ari pictures creation leaving the world (Malkuth) rather isolated. Also, the 'GRA' Tree has quite differnt astrological 'correspondences' and card associations; there is a deck, "El Gran Tarot Esoterico" completely based on this Tree-schema (and it's one of my most successful decks!). Payne-Towler has a website and I think you can oder her book from there.
 

Moonbow

You've given me more to Google SittingIdiot.

One thing I have decided, for now, is that I won't try to tie up the Tarot with the Tree of Life until I know more. Then perhaps I will come up with my own allocations, unless I read something which leads me to think I can work in another way.

I like Fluffmeister's site very much Fulgour, and having done some reading on the Sephirot over the last few days. Although I have a long way to go I will look at Hebrew before I bring Tarot into it. He explains things in a simple way, which suits me :), and also I'm intrigued by what he says about Gematria. I like numbers.