Alef = I-Bateleur or = Fou ?

MikeTheAltarboy

I just read over that site, wizzle. He hasn't changed *my* mind. ;-)

First, comments like
n Eliphas Levis’ system, in on the 1652 Tree layout, the Emperor and Empress Paths cross in Da’at, ‘Knowledge’ in the Biblical sense. The message of Divine sexual unity and equality couldn’t be clearer. This was also lost to the Golden Dawn. Mathers’ own marriage, with no sexual consummation, seems consistent with this.
I find to be an example of "mistaking the finger for the moon." Of course, I'm not an adept yet, but I have a very strong suspision that *God doesn't have genital sex with him/herself*.
This is just as off-putting to me as a God-created gay man as a "One God with a Penis" is to women.

He seems to base his ideas on the Kirscher tree, which is hardly definitive. He argues that the path-letter assignment is right, but that the trump-letter assignment isn't; yet never mentions the Sepher Yetzirah associations that make for the link.

Puting Jupiter, Saturn, Sol, and Mars out of order doesn't make a lot of sense to me (and isn't justified by him except in appeal to the Kirscher tree), and while puting Mars on the right and Venus on the left maintains their *gender* associations, it blows away completely the "mercy/severity" distinction that seems more important to the pillars.

He says the fool belongs at 20.5 or whatever because it's the "aspirant leaving malkuth". If that's the only reason, well, reasons just as good place the world, temperance, and the popesse on the middle pillar.

His explanation as to why 0 doesn't precede 1 kabbalistically I can't follow at all; however, it *certainly* fails to explain why 0 = 20.5 or otherwise falls between 20 and 21 kabbalistically.

I would still be able to be convinced to rearange my assignments and paths - but not by Mr. Collet. ;-)
 

jmd

I fail to read anywhere on the site a suggestion that the Fou be given a value of '20.5'... though this may simply be a manner of dismissing those who find value in placing the normally un-numbered fool between cards XX and XXI (not my preferred location either, by the way, but a position that has its own merits).

Richard Collet's article linked above ('The Demise of the Golden Dawn') of course, by both its title and content, be not liked by many and, when combined with errors made within, seem rather weak. Yet it too contains much that is worthy of reflection.

Where I fail to agree is, in part, in the following:
Continental Rosicrucian and Grande Orient Lodges still conform to Levi’s Tarot placement on the 1652 attributions, as is attested to by Tavaglione’s Stairs of Gold Tarot deck and Mouni Sadhu’s Tarot. (Mouni Sadhu was born an ethnic German in Australia. A long resident in Poland [...])
Grand Orient Lodges do not use Tarot, and though some 'Rosicrucian' societies that derive from (St Martin and hence) Papus and Wirth influences may, others do not.

Further, Kircher's attributions have nothing to do with Tarot, and may be used by either GD or OKRC correlations with equal ease. As to Mouni Sadhu (Dimitr Sudowski's acquired name), he was not born, to my knowledge, as an ethnic German, nor was he born in Australia.

With regards to the comments about zero and one, there is, in my view, an equivocation between the numerals and numbers one and zero: the former's number-value depends entirely, in Hindo-Arabic numerals, on placement.

The placement of cards on the Tree of Life, in any case, may not need in the least correlate letters that may also be there placed. For example, someone may very well accept a placement of the Bateleur between Keter and Binah (I do not place the card there, by the way!), and simultaneously place Alef upon the highest horizontal transverse on common depictions, such as the Kircher version (between Hockmah and Binah)... and still make a link between Alef and the Bateleur!
 

kwaw

wizzle said:
I came across this website that argues for aleph = 1, the Mage

http://users.rcn.com/occult/occulus/thedemise_000.html

and I find it reasonably convincing.

Too many errors in there on the areas in it I know about for me to find it remotely convincing or to trust its assertions in areas I am less familiar with. [For one, the association of Saturn with Binah is not a GD innovation but goes back at least to the 13th century kabbalistic school of Gerona.] A typical anti-GD tirade the arguments of which as far as I can make out to be based on errors, misunderstanding and simple misrepresenation.

If anyone is interested for ease of reference [my own, as much as anyone else's] I have put all the correlations between alef and fool I have put forward in this thread in one place here:

http://www.thelogos.co.uk/kwawalef.htm

Glad to here of any comments, corrections, amendments or errors of content.

Kwaw
 

MikeTheAltarboy

I fail to read anywhere on the site a suggestion that the Fou be given a value of '20.5'...

Yes, that was me just being snarky. :p

If there are merits to placing the fool there, I'd be willing to hear them, though I'm *extremely* skeptical. It seems obvious to me from the rules of the game that it belongs *under* the magician in "order"; a 2nd choice would be at the end (which would go with modern eastern rules). But there's no way it can belong *within* the sequence.
Of course, esoterists needn't be bound by gaming rules; however, when diverging too far, the question arises of whether or not we're still dealing with the same thing. I tend to think Eteilla was pushing it. ;-)
 

jmd

As an interesting aside, I suspect that an early reason for placing the Fou between cards XX and XXI is because of gaming convention... or at least in Parisian regions in the early parts (at least - and undoubtedly much earlier) of last century, in which when in the hand would be placed as second last atouts (to perhaps remind oneself to NOT play it last, as it would then, and ONLY then, be lost).

This, of course, takes it beyond as to whether Alef is best (of at all) correlated to either Bateleur or Fou.

...and let's face it, if 'occult' or claimed esoteric reasons are going to be rejected as a claim to placing the Fou as penultimate, then a letter having a value of ONE will naturally be placed with a card numbered ONE - unless of course one brings GD-type esoteric or occult claims.
 

kwaw

jmd said:
As an interesting aside, I suspect that an early reason for placing the Fou between cards XX and XXI is because of gaming convention... or at least in Parisian regions in the early parts (at least - and undoubtedly much earlier) of last century, in which when in the hand would be placed as second last atouts (to perhaps remind oneself to NOT play it last, as it would then, and ONLY then, be lost).

Interestingly Gebelin makes a point that you yourself have made before, that in 'play' it is held after XXI, though de Mellet in the same book makes apparent it comes nonetheless before le Bateleur [though in his scheme at the end of the allegory, running from world to fool]; in the accompanying illustrations of the cards the fool, numbered 0, comes before le bateleur.

This, of course, takes it beyond as to whether Alef is best (of at all) correlated to either Bateleur or Fou.

Wrong way round surely? Fou is either un-numbered or zero, the earliest french occultists agree on that. No hebrew letter means zero, but aleph is the only one called kadmon ayin, primal nothing, if the association between the cards and letters is there, aleph is the only one that in kabbalistic tradition since the 13th century at least has referable references to a connection with either and both 'nothingness', one and zero; I can give you a thousand + quotes showing such, what is the connection between shin or tau and either 'nothingness' or 'zero'. This isn't a GD reference, the connection can go back to the earliest continental tradition with Gebelin and Mellet up to Wirth.

...and let's face it, if 'occult' or claimed esoteric reasons are going to be rejected as a claim to placing the Fou as penultimate, then a letter having a value of ONE will naturally be placed with a card numbered ONE - unless of course one brings GD-type esoteric or occult claims.

And a card unnumbered or marked 0 will go naturally with a letter having historical connection with nothingness and zero, since the 12th century, that would be alef. If one discounts claimed esoteric reasons then the natural allegorical position of the fool is first, as it is in Mantegna and several for example German decks, if it weren't for French esoteric claims that it should be 21st no one commonly would have thought have putting it there.Why should a card having no value or zero be allocated to a letter representing numerically 300 or 400? What is the connection?

There is nothing 'occult' about allocating a card numbered '0' to 1, or 1 to 2, 2 to 3 as I have referenced before, it is 'exoteric' not 'esoteric' symbolism, such n-n=1 parallelisms are in the bible, and common among semitic and arabic number puzzles. Nothing and zero is exoteric, with nothing esoteric to prove and obvious, it is the french 'esoteric' nothing or zero = 21st, 300 or 400 needs evidence, not the other way round.

Kwaw
 

jmd

I do not recall that for the game of Tarot, I have claimed that it may be positioned last - rather, I am pretty sure I have been consistent in mentioning that it is usually placed in one's hand as penultimate Atouts (for the game, and of course nothing to do with the rules, but convention, the same way that 'convention' in at least the 50s and 60s in France 'dictated' that the ordering of the suits (for the game) be diamonds, clubs, hearts and spade in that order - again, convention, not rule!).

What I have suggested in the past, and above again, is that if that convention was alerady in place at the time of E. Levi, this may account for his placing of the Fool as penultimate card in his Hebrew letter correlation, and that this was seen by him (and others) to have esoteric value, and hence promulgated as such.

The allocation of Alef to the Fool and Fool to zero is, of course, a specifically Golden Dawn correlation, whether or not there may be reasons it (and others) may find of value, and whether or not other considerations are brought into play (such as 'Alef' preceding creation because the Torah opens with 'Bet').

Once a zero is accepted for the Fou (and that is what is also variously viewed), then it mathematically needs to precede one. But not otherwise. That some decks (early or recent) have adopted this means no more than some decks have adopted this, perhaps even by what others consider erroneous.

Alef has been correlated with various supporting evidence to both the Fou and the Bateleur - I find the correlation to the Bateleur more natural and evident, whereas to the Fool somewhat more contrived... others find the opposite.

The placement of the Fou as penultimate has numerous protagonists as well, even if contributors who have that view here are rare. For example, Prof. Mebes, Mouni Sadhu, Wirth, Levi, and the anonymous author of the incredible book Meditations on the Tarot. Having such support of course does not make the correlation 'correct', any more than the other suggested correlations.
 

tink27

Aleph The Hidden Soul

Is this not simply the soul arising from 'nothing-able-to-be-anything?

Since aleph is a sacred mystery, how can it be known. Is it not a vibrational energies of endless possibilities plus with a timelessness of its own.

To name it does this not limit its potential?

Oh wait, asking that question made me think that 'naming it' begins its descent through the heavenly bodies embodying it in 'flesh' and creating wheels of energy. Naming it, finds itself encased in a physical body and the wheels (chakras) become its transformers, modifying, transmitting and distributing. The aleph, now encased in flesh must embark on a journey to discover his power in this House Of Energy.

just a thought

tink
 

wizzle

Kwaw,

You expressed my feelings about zero, but far more eloquently than I could have done.

One difficulty I have with the discussions on this thread is that they focus mostly on the path between kether and chockmah. What about the rest of the paths once you shift the Fool off of aleph? Assuming you just reorder the whole mess and put the fool somewhere like tau or shin.... what happens then?

Well, going in the usual order, you get the following cards crossing the abyss...

Empress
Justice (or strength)
Lovers....

How does everyone feel about that? I sincerely like the Empress but she doesn't impress me as an abyss-crosser.

If you consider that the three pillars equate to

severity = high magick
middle = mysticism
mercy = organized religion

in terms of how to approach god/kether then I think both the Chariot and Hierophant are better than Justice/Lovers.

But look at what happens on the middle piller. You replace Temperance with the Devil as the mediator between Tipareth and Yesod. Now I ask you, is this anything other than nuts? The paths from Malkuth (going up) are then World or Fool for Tau.... Devil... Empress. Ugh... can we say ugh???? None of us are likely to wisk up to kether by way of the very earthy Devil or Empress. Nope, can't be done.

But you can get there via... World... Temperance.... High Priestess.

And THAT is why 0 = 1.
 

jmd

Any so-called 'path' allocation on the Tree of Life is an additional question that needs to be addressed independently to which card Alef is attributed.

For those who prefer to use the Golden Dawn version of letter-'path' allocations based on the Kircher Tree, then the letter-atouts correlation will likely also be the preferred correlation.

Others may prefer to have a look as the earlier alternative offered by Wirth, for example, or take into consideration the various letter-Tree of Life correlations offered by others outside of Tarot in general, and the Golden Dawn specifically. It may then be found that, for example, the three mother letters are at times placed on three horizontals - with ramifications this may have for positionings of Atouts given letter attributions.

Also, where the 'Abyss' is located on the Tree (if located therein at all) depends again on how this term is understood, and its relationship (or lack thereof) to Da'at, to the Klipot', and to the 'spaces' outside of the 'Sefirot'. It may be considered, then, that NO letter (and hence no correlated card) 'crosses' any abyss.