Really Obtuse Newbie Questions

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.
 

Richard

......My aversion to reading through GD stuff usually comes from all the ritual or ceremonial content that is often portrayed to be necessary to grasp whatever it is i am trying to read up on. Setting up a witchy space, with daggers and pentagrams, chanting hebrew angel names and invoking lord knows who, wearing fancy robes and so on is probably just never gonna happen for various reasons. ;)
Skip the ceremonial magic unless you think that may be your thing. For tarot in the Qabalah context, about all one needs (for starters) are:

Chicken Qabalah by DuQuette
Sepher Yetzirah
Book T

I suggest skipping the divination procedure outlined in Book T. There are newer and better sources for that, if you are interested.
 

Kingdubrock

Skip the ceremonial magic unless you think that may be your thing. For tarot in the Qabalah context, about all one needs (for starters) are:

Chicken Qabalah by DuQuette
Sepher Yetzirah
Book T

I suggest skipping the divination procedure outlined in Book T. There are newer and better sources for that, if you are interested.

Thanks L.
The DuQuette book is quite cool so far - which i had bought on Closrepaxa's advice. It seems LDQ is even more influential than I realized. Many people i have been reading and listening to (including Poke Runyon in his delightful podcast) seem to quote him liberally, which i didnt realize until I started reading this book.
Im not sure I realized that pathworking could be separated out from the ceremonial, or that it might be practiced separately from the middle pillar (with its preliminary LBR type stuff). Lon's "Chicken" attitude has made for an interesting lens to approach this stuff with.

In Vajrayana it's a very different frame of mind, where the instability and even insanity that can result from deviating in any way from the strict instructions of the lama and the tradition, the "samaya" or deadly serious oaths one takes to respect this, and the emphasis on lineage "pedigree" would appear to have influenced my approach and questions thus far. While tantra has had its legendary exceptions and share of crazy wisdom types, the rule of thumb seems to be that until you can eat a plate of feces as if it was ambrosia, stick to the plan.

As well, despite its reputation for iconoclasm, within Zen, or at least my own training, dispensing with what rubs one the wrong way, which some (usually Western) teachers have done, has had, er, mixed results.

My own experience has been that magic and sorcery (both inner and outer) -works, pretty much big time, so i tend to be pretty neurotic/picky about where i get practice information from.

Anyway, as i said, with everyones help here, i am closer to locating an initial "view" from which to proceed.
 

Kingdubrock

Closrepaxa said:
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

Quibbling and debating (and flag waving for the marseille tarot) is out of focus for my purposes here but despite the pervasive claims of this nature, Im rather inclined to disagree. In case you or anyone here might be interested I just wanted to share a few links for a different perspective:

http://tarot-history.com/Enrique-Enriquez/pages/itw-EE-15-02-2010-eng.html

Its unfortunately in French for the time being, but one can get something of what mr. Houdouin has to say from the following:

http://www.tarot-de-marseille-millennium.com/english/tarot_sacred_code.html

And while of a slightly, albeit fully understandable "sectarian" viewpoint, this site has some great articles which are worth reading:

http://www.tarot-authentique.com/tarot-divination/the-poetry-of-the-tarot-de-marseille.html
 

ravenest

The main tantra where astrology figures heavily is the Kalachakra which, while empowerments to practice (initiations performed by high lamas such as HHDL) are reasonably common or accessible, not that many people really devote their practice to it.

Zan.thay (member around here, somewhere) does that stuff.

Setting up a witchy space, with daggers and pentagrams, chanting hebrew angel names and invoking lord knows who, wearing fancy robes and so on . ;)

Sounds like Tibetan Buddhism - swap dagger for phurba, Hebrew for Tibetan, ;)
 

Kingdubrock

Zan.they (member around here, somewhere) does that stuff.



Sounds like Tibetan Buddhism - swap dagger for phurba, Hebrew for Tibetan, ;)

Thats actually true. No doubt. I am certain that ritual magic both east and west has common origins. I was always a bit uncool with it in my vajrayana training as well, for a great many reasons I wont get into, but i was careful, because of the Samaya which empowerments I took. Went Dzogchen and Zen from about 2003 onwards. Have settled into Vipassana in my old age :D
 

ravenest

Thanks L.

My own experience has been that magic and sorcery (both inner and outer) -works, pretty much big time, so i tend to be pretty neurotic/picky about where i get practice information from.

Ditto :)

" In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.

It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.

3. The advantages to be gained from them are chiefly these:
("a") A widening of the horizon of the mind.
("b") An improvement of the control of the mind.

4. The student, if he attains any success in the following practices, will find himself confronted by things (ideas or {13} beings) too glorious or too dreadful to be described. It is essential that he remain the master of all that he beholds, hears or conceives; otherwise he will be the slave of illusion, and the prey of madness."


http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib6.html
 

Richard

Quibbling and debating (and flag waving for the marseille tarot) is out of focus for my purposes here but despite the pervasive claims of this nature, Im rather inclined to disagree......
'Official' tarot history conforms to a certain empirical methodology, which historians, sociologists, psychologists, and other such riff-raff (just kidding) hope will help elevate their chosen disciplines above the less than totally reputable 'soft science' category.

There are unanswered questions. What was there about a game deck which inspired esotericists to adapt it for totally different purposes?

Hard core historians come across as being totally positive of the absolute truth of the present state of knowledge regarding the origins of tarot: there were no esoteric influences whatsoever on the development of tarot. How nice that they have such godlike assurance! I'm sure physicists would like to be so damn cocksure about the present state of their knowledge of cosmology or quantum theory.
 

Zephyros

How nice that they have such godlike assurance! I'm sure physicists would like to be so damn cocksure about the present state of their knowledge of cosmology or quantum theory.

But science cannot prove a negative, you can only try to make the best guess you can based on the evidence available. Tarot might have had esoteric roots, but in the absence of proof, we are only left with Crowley's chess metaphor in the Book of Thoth that its inventors did better than they knew. They couldn't have foreseen the sophistication the game would garner, but that takes nothing from either them or the game.

In the case of Tarot this is even more pronounced, as there is overwhelming evidence pointing to its status as a game or an objet d'art but nothing contemporary, that I know of, to point to anything "strictly" esoteric. If we're talking semiotics, on the other hand, I would argue that the Marseilles contains these "codes" because it was made by humans to communicate with other humans. In other words, these came as naturally as archetypes. But that's still doesn't fit the dry definition of esoteric, unless all possible images are esoteric by virtue of their being images, but that's just circuitous.

Personally I find that the argument that Tarot had esoteric roots a bit of wishful thinking, as if it would lose something of its power and importance if it had dared be a simple game, or a mistake. Not everything needs a creation myth.
 

Richard

.......Personally I find that the argument that Tarot had esoteric roots a bit of wishful thinking, as if it would lose something of its power and importance if it had dared be a simple game, or a mistake. Not everything needs a creation myth.
I'm sure I don't know whether there may have been esoteric influences. I just don't have the unshakable faith of the hardcore historians who state with absolute certainty that there were no such influences. The whole tarot scenario becomes all the more remarkable if it were merely a trick-taking card game before the occultists appropriated it. Personally, I would prefer a more plausible, rational explanation of its remarkable appropriateness for esoteric use, but if one wishes to see this as a sort of coincidence or a forced grafting of unrelated philosophical concepts onto a game, that's certainly their prerogative.