The Basis of Kabbalah: some views

Umbrae

kwaw said:
As I read it The Holy Kabbalah by Waite is in greatest proportion about Jewish Kabbalah, and acknowledged scholars of the subject such as Scholem and Idel rate it as fairly accurate and comprehensive within the available resources of the time. There is in fact very little in it as regards the ToL or 22 letters [about 20 pages out of 630 are directly concerned with the sephiroth, four worlds and paths + about another 6 appendix pages on the sephiroth and 2 on the four worlds]. Book X reports on Christian development of kabbalah and XI of 'occult' or esoteric aspects. For anyone who can cope with his style of writing personally I would recommend it.

LOL difficult to answer when the post gets re-edited hourly.

Well, lets examine what Gershom Scholem says:
Kabbalah - Gersholm Scholem Pages 202-203

…The many books written on the subject in the 19th and 20th centuries by various theosophists and mystics lacked any basic knowledge of the sources and they very rarely contributed to the field, while at times they even hindered the development of a historical approach. Similarly, the activities of French and English occultists contributed nothing and only served to create considerable confusion between the teachings of the Kabbalah and their own totally unrelated inventions, such as the alleged kabbalistic origin of the Tarot-cards. To this category of supreme charlatanism belong the many and widely read books of Eliphas Levi (actually Alphonse Louis Constant; 1810 – 1875), Papus (Gérard Encause; 1868 – 1916), and Frater Perdurabo (Aleister Crowley; 1875 – 1946), all of whom had an infinitesimal knowledge of Kabbalah that did not prevent them from drawing freely on their imaginations instead. The comprehensive works of A.E. Waite (The Holy Kabbalah, 1929), S. Karppe, and P. Vulliaud, on the other hand, were essentially rather confused compilations made from secondhand sources.

Further, Waite was by his own admission (Story of the Waite-Smith Tarot – K. Frank Jensen (I don’t have my copy here and am unable to provide the page number) was a plagiarist who was rather pleased when the he’d recycle previously published stories and never got in trouble (it appears as a piece of personal correspondence in the chapter on Waite himself).

I have a personal issue with Waite – and that I’ll admit freely. I personally did not find The Holy Kabbalah helpful or particularly eastern, I found it quite pedantic; as was Dion Fortune’s The Mystical Qabalah.

Living Kabbalah (I have not, nor have I ever investigated what I refer to as ‘Red String’ Kabbalah, and as such exclude it from this post) requies one to ask, “How are we to live in the presence of God”, or perhaps more correctly, ‘how would you act, if God were in the room with you?’.

Eastern or Jewish Kabbalah is about achieving balance in and of the four worlds.

Spiritual growth to be is about striving for balance, or Yishuv Olam. Not about dogma, or "confused compilations made from secondhand sources."
 

Umbrae

...and I still think it is really difficult to have a good honest discussion of Kabbalah without the Torah...

But that's my opinion...:smoker:
 

kwaw

Umbrae said:
Well, lets examine what Gershom Scholem says:

The comprehensive works of A.E. Waite (The Holy Kabbalah, 1929), S. Karppe, and P. Vulliaud, on the other hand, were essentially rather confused compilations made from secondhand sources.

As I said, The Holy Kabbalah by Waite is in greatest proportion about Jewish Kabbalah, and acknowledged scholars of the subject such as Scholem and Idel rate it as fairly accurate and comprehensive within the available resources of the time.

It is marred by inadequate analysis of historical data and a reliance on an error ridden French translation of the Zohar, but with that note of caution still remains a fairly comprehensive and insightful introduction to the subject in English. Also some of Scholem's own concerns about Waite's accuracy, in relation to the 'sexual mysteries' of the shekinah for example, other scholars such as Idel feel Waite is more accurate and perceptive than Scholem credits or is willing to acknowledge.

Scholem also says of Waite (Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism):

"Nor have we reason to be proud of the fact that the greater part of the ideas and views which show a real insight into the world of kabbalism...were expressed by Christian scholars of a mystical bent, such as the Englishman Arthur Edward Waite of our days...It is a pity that the fine philosophical intuition and natural grasp of such students lost their edge because they lacked critical sense as to historical and philological data in this field...[p.2]

"In English literature on the subject A. E. Waite's "The Secret Doctrine in Israel" (later incorporated into 'The Holy Kabbalah) represents a serious attempt to analyze the symbolism of the Zohar. His work...is distinguished by real insight into the world kabbalism; it is ...marred by an uncritical attitude towards facts of history and philology, to which it must be added that he has frequently been led astray by Jean de Pauly's faulty and inadequate French translation of the Zohar, which, owing to his own ignorance of Hebrew and Aramaic, he was compelled to accept as authoritative."[p.212]

Scholem's cautionary notes towards Waite are largely concerned with errors of history and philology. One major criticism of Waites understanding of the doctrine and symbolism of kabbalah is where he notes:

"A first attempt to analyze this symbolism has been made by Waite in the chapter on "The Mystery of Sex" in his Secret Doctrine in Israel...But his analysis is built on the incorrect hypothesis that the Zoharic term ...means a sex mystery. As a matter of fact, this term simply signifies the whole of the ten Sefiroth, the mystical world of God, without any sexual or erotical connotation."[p.403]

In this point however, other Scholars are of the opinion that Waite is more correct in his view of the kabbalistic 'mystery of sex' than is Scholem, and this criticism reflects as much on Scholems tendency to downplay the erotic elements as allusions to a 'sexual mystery' in kabbalah than to an error on Waite's part.

Kwaw
 

kwaw

Umbrae said:
Living Kabbalah ... requies one to ask, “How are we to live in the presence of God”, or perhaps more correctly, ‘how would you act, if God were in the room with you?’.

Even if this were true, to denigrate and/or deny the 'dogma' and reduce things to the level of common place religious sentiment avoids rather than answers that which defines and differentiates what kabbalah is.

It is debatable that this particular piece of religious genera is in fact particularly true of kabbalah. It is a question asked and answered within Judaism without any particular reference to, or need of, 'kabbalah'; kabbalah adds meaning or the why of the how, the laws and precepts.

However, I certainly agree with your points that:

Kabbalah is about achieving balance in and of the four worlds

Or as you mentioned in an earlier post:

Kabbalah helps us understand that everything we do think and say in Asiyyah, resonates in the other worlds – and that eventually – everything evens out.

Both eloquently made. And also agree with you the essential fundamental place of the Torah as the source of its symbols, the obect of its veneration and enquiry and as its ultimate authority.

Kwaw
 

kwaw

kwaw said:
In Kabbalah the universe and its dynamics are understood in relation to the structure of language and its components, letters, syllables, words and sentences, the primary semantic unit being the word [written and oral]; and relates the precepts of discourse to cosmic processes.

Kwaw

In parallel to this fourfold structure, are the fourfold senses of interpretation, as mentioned by JMD:

JMD said:
The 'basis', in terms of Kabalah, would be, I would have thought, first and foremost a fourfold understanding and reading of the Torah - the fourfoldness reflected in the acronym PaRDeS, where the last letter stands for what is really a 'secret', sacred, and spiritual understanding and exegesis of the text, informed by meticulous personal work as well as being solidly grounded in various texts within the religious corpus of Judaism.

Jewish scholars from the 13th century on drew heavily upon methods of Christian exegesis, and the Zoharic PaRDeS is almost certainly modeled upon the Christian patristic four senses. Hugh of St. Cher, the first dominican cardinal and compiler of the first concordance of the bible, compared the four senses to the four coverings of the tabernacle, the four winds, the four rivers of paradise and the four holy creatures.

Kwaw
 

AmounrA

Symbiotic

I don't rate Waite either. For much the reasons given by Umbrae.

My thoughts are that the basis of Kabaalaa is the tree of life. With only this symbol (and perhaps a pencil:), and contemplation on its many possible interpritations, no kabaalistic learning is needed. I see the symbol as universal and more, but the kabbalalistic interpitations as local ( though still a valid 'way' )

It is there to be played with, and playing with it means it meets you halfway. It plays too. Whether you call it tipareth or the sun. The tarot play very nicely with the tree of life. Give it many new interpritaions. They project on to one another is a pleasing way .