The 400 Sephiroth

Hi people.

I've been wondering about the concept of each sephira of Tree Of Life (in all
four worlds) containing a Tree Of Life in itself. Robert Wang writes:

"Having said this, a further complication will be added, which is the fact
that each of the forty Sephiroth of the Four Worlds contains a complete Tree of
Life of its own, so that there are actually four hundred Sephiroth in all."
(Qabalistic Tarot, p. 50)

Click to expand...

In my understanding this would mean that, for example, inside Binah of
Briah lies a complete Tree Of Life of its own and to think about each of
its Sephiroth would require one to take into account the influences of
Binah and Briah but also the said Sephira's own individual characters.
I'm not sure if I can easily utilize this in a Tarot reading (ideally,
wouldn't I need ten extra "sub-minor" cards to go with each of the forty
minors?) but it could well be of use for studying/meditation purposes.
Does anyone here have experience on dealing with "the 400 Sephiroth"?

I've been searching the web for more information on this concept but to little
or to no avail. Hopefully people here can shed a bit more light on this
fascinating concept.

Thanks.

To know when to stop is the highest attainment.
Zhuangzi.

bradford said:

To know when to stop is the highest attainment.
Zhuangzi.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an insight too. (IIRC, Nietzsche spoke about that as well.
Something about "dying at the right time".) But if one wanted to delve a bit deeper
into things ignoring the wise men's words? I guess I'll have to keep on
digging.

komm8n said:

Well, that's an insight too. (IIRC, Nietzsche spoke about that as well.
Something about "dying at the right time".) But if one wanted to delve a bit deeper
into things ignoring the wise men's words? I guess I'll have to keep on
digging.

Click to expand...

um basic fractals dude

lurianic kabbalah i believe? not sure

http://www.maqom.com/tree/tree9.jpg

As I see it, Tarot and Kabbalah, though lending one another a kind of beautiful symmetry, aren`t native to one another, and the needs of the one aren't always the needs of the other. It is a fascinating idea, but remember that the core of Kabbalah isn't Tarot, so as to incorporating it in a reading, I`d say it would be a challenge.

It is true, I think, that each Sephira holds within it the totality of its universe from its own point of view, for example Yesod holds inside it an entire Tree of Life from a "Yesodic" perspective. The Aces, as representing Keter, hold within them the totalities of their complete suits, but as they merely represent Keter, they hold only their own suits, plus a smidgen of the original Keter. Pure Keter itself, which, objectively speaking, is not represented in Tarot, holds the totality of totalities, both the "all" and the "nothing" (pure potential). The closest thing to "pure" Keter would be the Fool, I think, although the Majors rest upon the paths and not the Sephiroths.

I completely agree with bradford, there is a limit to how deep one can go without going mad.

Another "complication," as it were (I tend to think of it as more fuel for meditation) is that each major holds within it an entire universe from its own perspective, so that a "truly complete" Tarot deck would hold at minimum 1232 cards (22*56). Multiply that by what you said, and we have 492800... a little too big to carry in your pocket . It really is infinite, like the universe itself, since it doesn't stop at 492800, all those "little" Sephiroths contain an entire universe in themselves, so one could further magnify them. Or, one could stop at the four Aces, since together they hold the totality. Or, one could stop at the Ace of Swords, since, as belonging in the suit of Atziluth, it is the closes thing to "pure" Keter that there is. But then, that would be an awfully thin deck

Sorry, I'm getting lost in my own words. The point is,thank you, you've enlightened me and made me think of things.

There are in Lurianic Kabbalah some very complicated doctrines similar to the one you reference, which is all well and good but really only distracts from the simple fact that knowledge of the precise nature of the Sefirot has lapsed. The important thing is to understand what Sefirot are: they are the first ten of thirteen stations in all (the thirteen 'middot' or divine attributes), meaning the first ten signs of a round of twelve, with the thirteenth being the return to the beginning. Early Kabbalists described Sefirot as God's 'individuation', and they are in essence just that: ten stations from (1) up or aries (the head), meaning what is exalted or 'on high', to (10) straight back towards self—i.e. straight back from (4), which is straight ahead towards other (called Lovingkindness).

Since each station is a point on the round, it has the same directions going out from it that go out from each round's center, yet this fact is of little more than a trivial nature. There are four rounds: the wheel centered atop Upright Sentience (Adam Qadmon), that centered atop seated Adam, that centered at the heart of seated Adam, and the round of the womb—each wheel half the height of its predecessor. But I see little to be gained in worrying about a Tree within each Sefirah when the fundamental problem that escapes most occult theorists today is understanding what the Sefirot are to begin with!

A much more important thing to know about Sefirot is that each Tree has a different arrangement: the triadic arrangement everyone is familiar with is the Tree of the third or Yetzirah world, in which triplicities are the ruling paradigm (though its underlying logic is actually that of the tetraktys). The Tree of the second or Beriyah world is that described in Sefer Yetzirah, in which they are generated as five pairs of opposites. The Tree of the first or Atzilut world is that described in the Bahir, in which each Sefirah is a power unto itself and takes its character directly from its station on the round. And the Tree of the fourth or Asiyah world is that consisting of the planetary cycles of the material world. The Asiyah and Yetzirah worlds' Trees are closely related, since the latter imposes form on the former. Thus, for instance, the power of Mars resides in the fifth Sefirah because in the triadic Tree (5) is the second female type—(2) and (3) are chaste male and female, (4) and (5) are procreating male and female, and (7) and (8) are lusting male and female—and the second female type is the procreating female, since the martial archetype is a mother (normally peaceful and nurturing) defending her young (whereupon she turns into hell's own fury). Another example: Venus is that after which the lusting male type, (7), lusts. And so on.

It should be apparent from this brief exposition that there are more important issues to get clear in one's head than the infinite complexities of Lurianic Kabbalah, which were largely invented to fill the void left by the lost inner teachings, lost evidently as a result of the expulsion from Spain (1492), which was one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of Western man (if you ask me).

closrapexa said:

As I see it, Tarot and Kabbalah, though lending one another a kind of beautiful symmetry, aren`t native to one another, and the needs of the one aren't always the needs of the other. It is a fascinating idea, but remember that the core of Kabbalah isn't Tarot, so as to incorporating it in a reading, I`d say it would be a challenge.

Click to expand...

Ironically, the TdM comes closer to the 'core of Kabbalah' than modern rabbis and occultists do, frankly: the devisors of the TdM knew Qabbalah from a bardic (i.e. Gnostic) perspective (Celtic bardic knowledge surely being the catalyst that brought about the new awakening in 12th-century Languedoc, since it and the Judaic Ma'aseh Merkavah or 'Work of the Chariot' were branches of the same ancient trunk). TdM embodies Qabbalah more accurately than all the modern books on the subject put together. For example, moderns have changed the court cards of tarot to two males and two females, not realizing the yod and both hehs of the Name are on the male side of the round, leaving only vav on the female side (the male half of the Name is yod-heh, the female half vav-heh, a fact also no longer possessed in rabbinical or occult circles, yet quite easily verified from study of the letters involved). The core inner teachings of Qabbalah were still known back when TdM was being devised, though these teachings were later lost (requiring painstaking reconstruction by me over a period of decades). Another clear example is how trumps III L'Imperatrice and V LePape cleverly show they are the two bardic letters I (Heb. zayin) and B (beyt) and stand for pillars Jachin (male) and Boaz (female): Jachin's image is ostensibly female but shows the tail of the shield-eagle embracing her about the middle; Boaz's image is ostensibly male but shows the mother's arm entering the card from the right presenting her twin sons to the pontiff to be blessed. (These are the same two letters that retain their tree names yew and birch in the runic Elder Futhark.)

I completely agree with bradford, there is a limit to how deep one can go without going mad.

Click to expand...

I think it is not a question of how deep one goes (no madness there) but how far out on a tangent one climbs before one realizes the limb won't hold what one has hanging from it.

Another "complication," as it were (I tend to think of it as more fuel for meditation) is that each major holds within it an entire universe from its own perspective, so that a "truly complete" Tarot deck would hold at minimum 1232 cards (22*56).

Click to expand...

Why can't it simply be a matter of transition from one card to another: why do you need a card for each link when you can simply juxtapose the two cards and interpret them in tandem?

You present some good points about which I am unfortunately not learned enough to argue with, so I'll take your word for it.

But as to interpretation you're right, I do interpret them in tandem, of course I wouldn't want a deck that big, but it`s nice thinking of these things theoretically.

Wow, thanks everybody for their input. I see I have a *lot* to learn
about this stuff but still.

closrapexa said:

But as to interpretation you're right, I do interpret
them in tandem, of
course I wouldn't want a deck that big, but it`s nice thinking of these
things theoretically.

Click to expand...

+1. Emphasis on "theoretically". I can't see how one would apply the
"fractalism" of this in practice but as a sort of exercise in brainf***
it's in the league of its own.

BTW, a (virtual) Tarot deck of almost 500 000 cards wouldn't be too hard to
produce by programming. Who knows, maybe I'll code it some day to
further entertain my brain. Theoretically, that is.

venicebard said:

Since each station is a point on the round, it has the same directions going out from it that go out from each round's center, yet this fact is of little more than a trivial nature. There are four rounds: the wheel centered atop Upright Sentience (Adam Qadmon), that centered atop seated Adam, that centered at the heart of seated Adam, and the round of the womb—each wheel half the height of its predecessor. But I see little to be gained in worrying about a Tree within each Sefirah . . .

Click to expand...

I must amend this to say that in the Yetzirah world presence of the complete round (in the form of the Sefirot as angles on the zodiac of the human body, Sefirah 10 being its final quarter-circle) in each Sefirah does become something not at all trivial. For (and this may not be commonly known) its Sefirot represent each the complete upright form (for which the Tree of the world of form or formation is said as a whole to stand) at a different stage of degeneration from the immortal Adam Qadmon type to us . . . but even in this what is of primary importance is the presence in the psyche of these types as sources of thinking (sexless uprightness itself, the chaste male and female, the reproducing male and female, the offspring thereof, the lustful male and female, the offspring thereof, and the ramifications thereof).

Hence I must admit it may turn out that the Tree-in-each-Sefirah concept is non-trivial in other worlds as well, though it may not yet have occurred to me how (lol) . . . which means I probably should learn not to jump to conclusions based on insufficient reflection.