Kingdubrock
Kabbalah is a language, but the ideas conveyed in that language are not unrelated to real life. There is a certain learning curve, but once you get the basics down, it becomes easier and easier. Discussions may sound like technical minutiae, but they are really about love and sex and violence and war and pencils and chicken and juice. In other words, about Life itself, which is what Kabbalah concerns itself with. To me Kabbalistic terms sound like poetry and I'm moved by a simple description of a Sephira. Whether there are inconsistencies or not is, to me, immaterial, since it is in resolving those issues that one progresses. Tarot is a great Kabbalistic study tool, but I don't think "inconsistency" automatically leads to "incompatibility."
Like anything else occult, it depends on your viewpoint. The basic structure of a Tarot deck seems to conform to the Tree of Life, but then four, ten and twenty-two are recurring numbers in many things anyway. "Belief" in this, isn't necessary, since just as the Tree is an excellent diagram for projecting ideas onto, the Tarot is another such model. Whether a medieval Kabbalist would recognize the same pattern is debatable. It isn't impossible, but given the mindset of traditional Kabbalah, I doubt he would be so inclined.
Well, given that the Marseilles was originally a game, exotericism isn't such a bad thing. I think those occultists were a bit unfair in their judgments, since they were judging something according to a scale it wasn't meant to be on in the first place. A game of Monopoly doesn't have the literary stature of War and Peace, but the comparison is in itself absurd. Were one to look for the "truth," then I would counsel them to stay away from the GD, since it's all basically a forgery (the most important occult papers of our times found on a hansom cab by the one person who could do something with them? I hope the Secret Chiefs are paid overtime). On the other hand, I do find that, as you said, the system is still meaningful, coherent and effective. I don't know if I would call it a "new" system, as I see Kabbalah as a language in which to convey ideas, not an end in itself. It's saying new things for modern times, but it's still the same language, syntax and grammar. I think it is valid in and of itself.
But then, what's a forgery anyway? Can I really judge a system that seems to work based on whether or not I believe it came from invisible people? I can't really do that, it isn't in me, and so I'm left with judging efficacy and how much I enjoy it. I can't claim any higher pretensions than that. So someone came along and democratized the occult. Everyone creates their own Kabbalah, and whatever system you use, it is always up to you to resolve both attributions and issues within yourself, which is the end goal. It isn't like religion in which you receive a book, are told to follow its instructions and then you will be assured spiritual experience. Kabbalah isn't a body of knowledge you learn by heart, it's a method of thinking and if you manage to use what you learn and live a good and fulfilled life, who's gonna tell you're living your life wrong? You just have to wing it. If you're looking for answers, Kabbalah doesn't have them; it is a tool like a fork or knife that you use to interact with your world. No answers, only questions. Attributions are secondary to this and do not constitute the root of what Kabbalah is.
I don't know how Jewish Kabbalah is used in practical terms, but I'll start finding out. I should have done so a long time ago anyway. But, if to use Thelemic metaphor, to the traditional Jewish Kabbalist the Torah is one's True Will, having an exoteric layer (which is pretty complex on its own) and an esoteric layer. Kabbalah is a method of studying the Torah esoterically and experientially. How this is done in practical terms... I'll get back to you on that.
Well, yes and no. The Golden Dawn had, unfortunately but understandably, a decidedly British imperialistic view, and assumed that if they "rediscovered hidden knowledge," so to speak, that they were the first. However, the fact is, Kabbalah has never been lost or hidden. A constant tradition of it has existed for a long, long time. It was studied in the Middle Ages by Christians who sought either to understand it for their own benefits (hence we have Christian Kabbalah) or to find yet more reasons to burn Jews. They were successful on both counts. I'm guessing this goes to the second question, and I would say that the GD system need not be revised since it doesn't try to be anything it isn't, especially now. It exists as a standalone magickal system; anyone who wants to study the more traditional systems can do so, especially in this day and age.
This goes to usage and practicality. There are those, even on this forum, who would say that the GD got it all wrong, and that only this or that system is correct. It's like dying and finding out that you got the wrong religion all this time, turning the other cheek when you should have given an eye for an eye. You're ultimately screwed anyway, since you're in Hell, but you have no choice but go by the seat of your pants. I think this is what everyone does (it is certainly what I do). I believe that the real benefits come from actually doing the work, attributions are secondary and serve only as a conduit for what is essentially you. I don't know if he coined the term himself, but Lon Milo DuQuette wrote that through Kabbalah you understand Everything, and realize it is Nothing. That's the ultimate purpose, and I haven't seen anything in any system to counter that statement. I spoke a while ago in another thread about "Matrix vision" in which you see the whole world through numbers, through them find a connection between things and then see it all amounts to One. There is a certain point in which intellectualism must be eschewed, and I don't concern myself with the different debates about a "truth" no one actually knows.
I would say up to the individual, but I'm that kind of person. There are those (especially within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community) who would say I'm getting it all wrong. There are GD die-hards who would say I'm still getting it wrong, even though I'm using the GD Tree, because I don't do this or that. Whether you're a Jewish Rabbi or a British magician, there hasn't been an occultist yet who hasn't said, in some form or another "I'm right." But like religion (which hermeticism is not) everyone is wrong, and maybe we should be sacrificing humans to Ashtoreth or Nanabozho, who's to say they aren't the true gods?
On that, I disagree. The GD system has gained enough traction to be thought of as a system on par with any other. I don't actually think of it as sectarian, since all anybody actually does in the end is go to the Sefer Yetzirah, interpret it and draw up a diagram. This is what the GD did, and the authors of the Zohar itself. The advantage of the traditional approach is perhaps cultural compatibility. A medieval Jew writing commentary on the works of another will perhaps be better at it than an English gentleman. I still recommend Lon Milo DuQuette's "Chicken Qabalah" or Robert Wang's "The Qabalistic Tarot" or Celine Dion's "Mystical Qabalah." All three are excellent primers on the basic Kabbalistic definitions.
ETA: Not to pluck my own harp, I wrote an introduction myself a while ago. It is decidedly GD based, no doubt about that, and since I never continued it it is severely limited, and I have also revised my own views about parts of it, but maybe you'll find some use for it.
Thank you for your generous information. I have downloaded Chicken Qabalah.
Your point about the GD as being seen as being on par with any other tradition probably hits the closest to the nature of my problem. In the end I probably just havent trusted it enough (compared to my feelings about say, Buddhism, hinduism, Sufism etc) to immerse myself in it. And this comes, not so much from snobbery or elitism as seeing first hand how well intentioned, but just - off- and syncretic the thinkers from this generation were about Eastern systems. So while I may have felt more confidence in their ability to inherit, penetrate and innovate with native Western/Christian oriented systems, I was less confident, rightly or wrongly in their presentation of Kabbalah, which (including the work of earlier Christian kabbalists) is largely viewed with great disdain and portrayed as being "way off" by people from a more Jewish kabbalah pov.
Anyway, you have all made very good points which have helped me click with the sort of perspective that will help me approach this better than I have thus far.
Thanks much.