PDA

View Full Version : Qabala and alchemy



solomon levi
07-11-2012, 12:20 AM
(((((((((((((

MarkostheGnostic
07-12-2012, 01:25 AM
If you're beginning to appreciate Qabalah, you absolutely MUST get this little gem of a book! You'll thank me. I've read 50 or 60 books on Qabalah/Kabbalah/Cabbala over the decades" Waite, Wong, Franck, Fortune, Scholem, etc., etc., and THIS book cut through much of what I see as extraneous mysticism of the Divine Names. http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Qabalah-Will-Parfitt/dp/0760710791/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342056397&sr=1-1&keywords=parfitt%2C+elements+of+qabalah http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0760710791/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&qid=1342055943&sr=8-2-fkmr0&condition=used

My next choice after that, which describes better than any other book I know of how Qabalah relates to Tarot is: http://www.amazon.com/The-Qabalistic-Tarot-Textbook-Philosophy/dp/0971559139/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342056323&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=wong%2C+qabalistic+tarot

Krisztian
07-12-2012, 01:44 AM
Wow! I'm more deeply understanding why Qabala was/is considered an
essential component of alchemy.

For 20th Century alchemists, they seem to continually stress that one needs a system in order to arrange laboratory work, namely alchemy and alchemist. Thus, enters Kabbalah, or whichever way one wants to emphasize it's origin in spelling. I heard both Jean Dubuis as well as American alchemist Jack Glass also clearly practice this 'system approach'.

It's doubtful whether one can enter, or be initiated into, deeper aspects of alchemy without Kabbalah.

For me what's important is to approach alchemy like a father would express his love towards his child. I also suspect and see in my private life that analogical thinking, meditation on symbols is the key to progress and initiation. Kabbalah seems superb for this purpose! I'm very impressed by Dubuis' approach in The Experience of Eternity.

At the end of the day, for me, it's very much like giving birth to a child and raising him or her; the alchemical laboratory work mirrors the creation of such, it's very intimate, challenging and laborious, rewarding for sure, in need of intuition, patience, and the great love for creation of life.

P.s. I hope I wasn't off topic again?

solomon levi
07-12-2012, 03:57 AM
((((((((((((((

zoas23
07-12-2012, 08:41 AM
Some comments:

-I am not aware of any text that spelled it "Qabalah" before the Golden Dawn existed. I may be absolutely wrong, but the idea of spelling it "Qabalah" is mosly a Golden Dawn token.... So I don't really get the idea of using the word "Kabbalah" to refer to the Golden Dawn (it sounds as odd as using the word "magic" to describe the ideas of Crowley and "magick" to describe the ideas of Eliphas Levi... it doesn't seem to make sense).

-The Tree of Life with Neptune and Pluto isn't really used in the Golden Dawn. It is my opinion that the Golden Dawn tradition has a lot of interesting things to offer, but I must say that when it comes to Pluto, Neptune and Uranus... hmmm... the Golden Dawn was mostly designed following the classical astrology that includes 7 planets.

-The Golden Dawn system was created following the Sepher Yetzirah... actually, I am not aware of the existence of any system of Qabalah (or Kabbalah or Cabala) that was created not following the Sepher Yetzirah...

solomon levi
07-12-2012, 12:59 PM
(((((((((((((((

Krisztian
07-12-2012, 06:05 PM
Franz Bardon uses that spelling, I'm familiar with that more that's the reason for writing it.

zoas23
07-12-2012, 06:57 PM
"According to Hulse, (Key, 1996), the Golden Dawn attributions were "based on Macgregor Mathers' secret order." Since this ordering ignored the source document, the Sepher Yetsira, in all of its translations, classical understanding of the Hebrew attributions, the interpretations of every famous (Jewish) Qabalist and the classical (Platonic and Ptolemaic) order of the celestial spheres, one may wonder where Macgregor Mathers got his inspiration, which has completely dominated Tarot interpretation for over a century.
Why the system was accepted is another question."

Oops, the grid I tried to copy and paste fell apart. Here is the difference though. Not one is correct:

Double letter----Sefer Y------------Mathers-GD
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bayt--------------saturn--------------mercury
Gimel------------jupiter--------------moon
Dalet-------------mars----------------venus
Kaf---------------sun------------------jupiter
Peh---------------venus---------------mars
Raysh------------mercury-------------sun
Tav---------------moon----------------saturn

And this link shows there was total agreement up to a certain point:
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/yetsira/sy_planetaryattributions.html

The idea that Mathers ignored the Sepher Yetzirah is mostly bullshit.... Specially when Wescott had published a translation of the Sapher Yetzirah in 1887... Specially when Mathers was mostly obsessed with quoting the Sepher Yetirah in the ceremonies he was writing... rather than ignoring it, I'd say he was quite obsessed with that book.

Also, he was using the so called "short version"... which is called "short" simply because it's the original version. The other "versions" simply belong to traditions of commentators and there are several strategies of correspondences when it comes to the planets:

The "Short" (Original) version of the Sepher Yetzirah is very clear about the correspndencs of the 3 Mothers and the 12 Simples... but when it comes to the 7 doubles, it simply mentions which ones are the doubles, but doesn't offer any explanation about which one is related to which planet (the link you posted is also explaining this fact). A lot of commentators wrote "footnotes" and "extra chapters" to the Sepher Yetzirah... that's what the other "versions" are.
Mathers was quite aware of this fact, specially when Wescott's published version contained a set of correspondences that belong to one of these traditions (the one that is listed as "Gra" in the table of the page you posted). i.e, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/yetzirah.htm

Also, Mathers wrote more than a few texts in which he discusses other texts by other authors who are using several different set of correspondences for the 7 doubles. He was quite aware of this fact.

solomon levi
07-12-2012, 10:54 PM
Hi Zoas23. :)
Well, the proof is in the pudding. Whatever and however aware Mathers was, his order is a very different map.
The difference between Saturn and Moon being the center of the cube of space is a big one and represent very
different states of consciousness.
Everyone should investigate it themselves. Qabala is not a tradition passed down like Kabbalah is.
Qabala is not dead like passed down knowledge is dead. It is not a system to be memorised.
It is living, to be seen directly. When I look directly, the "Moon" is there. "The Cube of" Space is right
here for everyone to see. Who needs a map? Who needs to be told?
The only living "book" passed down is our genes. We are the evolved product. Look within. :)

Using a specific spelling... anyone can do that. Does it fit their actions, or is it just words?
People can say "thank you" and not act it. People can spell "Qabala" and not act it, not get it.
My use of it is not a reference to anyone in the past.

Anyway, this is all my subjective experience. I've studied and learned a lot from mostly Case but others too over the years.
I have no doubt or question in my mind/awareness that I am more evolved now. From my current position of
evolution, Suares is more true for me than Case or Mathers or GD.
If you're experience is different, I'm not contending with it. This is a place where we share what works for us.
But if you haven't experienced Suares, what does it mean to defend Mathers? I'd love to hear your view after you can
compare the two - and by compare, I mean experientially, not cogitation.

MarkostheGnostic
07-13-2012, 02:16 AM
I may have gleaned from Will Parfitt that Qabalah is generally used in its occult usage. From Parfitt, I found a skeletal heuristic that didn't focus on the Hebrew Divine Names, for example. He also provided a very usable correspondence between the 10 sephira and the 7 chakras that makes good symbolic sense to me. Hebrew Kabbalah is usually spelled thusly, with a 'K.' The 'Qa' beginning reminds me of a number of English transliterations for Arabic words, which to me creates a line of separation from Hebrew, even though they are both Semitic languages. Cabala with a 'C,' and dropping the 'h' final has been associated with Christian or perhaps Rosacrucian versions. I don't think there is any rule about these spellings except to suggest the systems they are integrated with. Ka-Bala was also the name of a board game I remember as a child. It was a kind of oracle game that had this big plastic eye floating in a center stand on the board :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka-Bala

zoas23
07-13-2012, 06:16 AM
Hi Zoas23. :)
Well, the proof is in the pudding. Whatever and however aware Mathers was, his order is a very different map.
The difference between Saturn and Moon being the center of the cube of space is a big one and represent very
different states of consciousness.
Everyone should investigate it themselves. Qabala is not a tradition passed down like Kabbalah is.

I am mostly explaining that it is absurd to use the word "Kabbalah" to refer to what either Mathers or the Golden Dawn did... and "Qabalah" for something else.... when the idea of spelling it "Qabalah" is something that was mostly invented in the Golden Dawn and by Mathers.

AS for the other comments, I have absolutely no problem with people liking or disliking Mathers or the Golden Dawn. Both of them (Mathers and the Golden Dawn) have very interesting views about some issues and by far less interesting views about other issues.... hardly an exception to the rule that says that nothing is absolutely perfect.

I have no intention of defending Mathers in a passionate way, but historical accuracy is often more interesting than opinions based on nothing. i.e, you quote David Allen Hulse stating that Mathers didn't know the Sepher Yetzirah... if he had that opinion, then obviously he didn't wasted much time researching before having that opinion... Wescott, who founded the Golden Dawn with Mathers, published his own translation of the Sepher Yetzirah in 1887; thus it makes absolutely no sense to imagine that Mathers was not aware of the existence of this book.

There are nice ways of re-writing history (art is doing it all the time... we also have a thread here about Poussin, in which it is hard for me to get if Poussin actually painted those pictures and if he actually wanted to say so many things as Gasc is seeing in them, but what Gasc is seeing in them is 100% fascinating... and I do love the way in which he thinks)... but there's also "ugly" ways of re-writing history (i.e, it is possible to say that Aleister Crowley stole the idea of spelling "Magick" with K from the Wiccans... except that it's not true and instead of offering a nicer way of understanding history, it is destroying our history).


I may have gleaned from Will Parfitt that Qabalah is generally used in its occult usage. From Parfitt, I found a skeletal heuristic that didn't focus on the Hebrew Divine Names, for example. He also provided a very usable correspondence between the 10 sephira and the 7 chakras that makes good symbolic sense to me. Hebrew Kabbalah is usually spelled thusly, with a 'K.' The 'Qa' beginning reminds me of a number of English transliterations for Arabic words, which to me creates a line of separation from Hebrew, even though they are both Semitic languages. Cabala with a 'C,' and dropping the 'h' final has been associated with Christian or perhaps Rosacrucian versions. I don't think there is any rule about these spellings except to suggest the systems they are integrated with. Ka-Bala was also the name of a board game I remember as a child. It was a kind of oracle game that had this big plastic eye floating in a center stand on the board :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka-Bala

Spelling it "Cabala" is something that started with Pico della Mirandola, when he spelled it that way in his 900 Thesis about God (in 1486)... a great book that mostly promoted a syncretic view of Religion and embraced neo-platonism, the Chaldean Oracles (well, they are also neo-platonism) and Cabala (which, well... it is also a form of neo-platonism)... but mostly stating that these other poins of view didn't contradict the Christian Religion (probably he had to be very strong about it because his teacher Ficino and him were mostly following ideas by Gemistos Pletho, who had become a rabid anti-Christian).
Pico is often quoted as the first example of a Christian Cabalah, which is half-right and half-false (his book doesn't really go to far into Cabala and mostly tries to show how a lot of different religious knowledges are mostly stating the same thing and that they aren't in contradiction with Christianism). I don't think he had a very special reason to spell the word "Cabala" with C...

And then the Christian Cabalists mostly kept on using the C (even though there are a lot of exceptions, Rosenroth published his book in 1678 as "Kabbala Denutata", with K).

And, of course, in a far more recent time, Fulcanelli defended the "Cabala" with C as opposed to the Kabbalah... and he was somehow re-writing history in a nice way, which is fine.

solomon levi
07-13-2012, 08:34 AM
The quote didn't say he didn't know SY. It said he ignored it.
Just so we don't re-write history. ;)

Anyway, can we try to get back to the topic of Qabala's application to alchemy.
Do you think/see that Qabala sheds light on alchemy? If so, how?

zoas23
07-13-2012, 07:31 PM
The quote didn't say he didn't know SY. It said he ignored it.
Just so we don't re-write history. ;)

Anyway, can we try to get back to the topic of Qabala's application to alchemy.
Do you think/see that Qabala sheds light on alchemy? If so, how?

Your will to win discussions no matter what sometimes make you quite blind... or deaf...

Anyway... History is actually important! So here's a reply that includes it:

Some 2,500 years ago, something fantastic happened: Plato established his school in the mount Academy.
As we know, Plato taugh in two very different ways:
1) his oral teachings were esoteric and technical
2) his written dialogues were mostly exoteric and for the masses.

Plato had a lot of sons: Christianism (Gnosticism), Gnostic Judaism (Philo of Alexandria), Pagan versions of Gnosticism (Hermeticism, the Chaldean Oracles), The Kabbalah, Neo-Platonism (Plotinus and Porphyry)... and Alchemy.

The esoteric system of Plato mostly got lost.... but it survived in Qabalah.

Why it survived there? It's because of historical circumstances... Something absoutely different could have happened, we could have nowadays the complete system of Valentinean Gnosticism, but we don't (even if an important part of it remains).

But I really think that this is why Qabalah is important: because it survived and still carries the way of tinking that made alchemy possible in the west.
(I am a complete ignorant of the Chinese Alchemy system, but I assume that it probably has nothing to do with Plato).

solomon levi
07-14-2012, 01:00 AM
((((((((((((((

zoas23
07-14-2012, 02:40 AM
Oh, Gosh... Solomon... you really have a problem with discussions that involve points of view different than your own. You are fantastic in a lot of ways, but when there's a discussion between you and any person that corsses your path and has a different opinion, you simply explode.
Your last post is nothing but a weird attempt at mocking me ("Mr. History"... ???) because you didn't like my point of view.
Chill out! I'm not your enemy. This thread is far more interesting than calling ourselves "Mr. History" or shit like that.

Also, if you bring issues which I find inaccurate, I don't think it is a problem to explain why I find them inaccurate, nor such thing spoils the thread... And if you want my opinion on why Qabalah is important for Alchemy... then I gave you my opinion in the post above (i.e, that I think that both disciplines were moulded after the same ideas, so it is quite natural to unite them... indeed, that both of them need each other).

solomon levi
07-14-2012, 06:25 AM
(((((((((((((((((((

vega33
07-14-2012, 09:19 AM
Wow! I'm more deeply understanding why Qabala was/is considered an
essential component of alchemy. It's just dawning on me, the seeing of it,
and it will take a little more time/contemplation to even begin to ineffectively
communicate it. :)

Qabala is a description of the creation of the universe - involution and evolution.
It shows both a scientific/quantum aspect and the psychological aspect of creation.
It is really about understanding yourself as the universe - Aleph in all, all in Aleph;
Bith in all, all in Bith; spiritualising matter, materialising spirit.
Fire and water triads = heaven/six/cube of space - solomon's shield/resistance/defense -
the middle place of time/creation between infinite unknowing and infinite knowing -
unconscious : conscious : superconscious.
In alchemy we have saturn/contraction and jupiter/expansion.
In Qabala they have Aleph and Tav; in Greek Alpha and Omega.
Back to alchemy - serpent's head swallowing its tail.
Androgynus' correlation between big bang and big crunch.

It has a lot to do with dimensions. Di-mens=aeon.
In my house/Bith there are many (di)mens-ions.
"Two minds" interacting to create a house/container/boundary/event horizon/cube of space/
dimension/aeon.
Two "minds", one fire and one water, one upward and one downward, one centripetal and
one centrifugal... Brahma/creation is the relative balance (libra) between Shiva and Vishnu,
destruction and preservation. In alchemy it is the androgynous child of the sun and moon.

There's a lot more in details, but this is the general outline.

http://marlinsmiddleages.wikispaces.com/file/view/Alchemy4.png/225672284/258x288/Alchemy4.png

This pic says everything I just said. Notice mercury in the hexagon with the title "double abyss" = di-mension.

I recommend the study of some of the earlier sections of Raphael Patai's "The Jewish Alchemists" on Zosimus, Maria et al. Some of it is very... enlightening when read under the surface of what is actually being said.

zoas23
07-14-2012, 09:38 AM
I'm sure you see that as the start.
This is the start where you begin to make it personal:
"Your will to win discussions no matter what sometimes make you quite blind... or deaf..."
As a moderator, do I have to remind you not to make threads personal.
This is how it starts. Can we stop now?

You took as a personal attack something I've said as a serius issue.
It wasn't meant as an ad hominem insult. I do truly believe you have a big problem with this issue and you atr not noticing it at all (Oh, well... I have other problems, none of us is perfect). So don't take it as a sign of lack of respect.

I have to organize the photo exhibition in 2 hours, so I am writing in a rush....

I don't think our opinions on Qabalah and Alchemy are really different. I mostly think they have been moulded using the same philosophy, that they are two expressions of the same thing.... and if you have the idea that their core is identical, then I certainly agree.

In a recent thread I've mentioned a book I really love, which is the 900 thesis of Pico. In this book Pica was mostly saying take a look at Plato, now take a look at the Chaldean Oracles, now take a look at Cabala and now take a look at Christianism: it's always the same thing explained in a different way. I really get along with that way of thinking, it is my way of thinking.

I don't really agree that Qabalah isn't a system that one learns. I do agree witht he idea that the intuituitive (for the lack of a better word) is the most important part of Qabalah... but that such thing becomes a reality AFTER/DURING learning (even if it may never come).




You took a shot at me. I gave one back. Now you want want to take another by
selling that I am an explosive personality. Who has a will to win? You need to be ahead?
Have the first and last shot?

Explode? This is a projection that satisfies how you like to imagine me reacting.
It says nothing about me. It's another invention of yours, like the invention that someone
said Mathers didn't know the Sepher Yetzirah. That you believe your descriptions are
of me, says something about your (un)awareness.

I don't have a problem with anyone correcting inaccuracies either. You can see that by my
response to your first post in this thread. Are you trying to suggest another false story about me?
My "problem" is you misrepresenting me, misquoting quotes, and starting with personal comments.
But then, it's also my "job" as a moderator to "have a problem with that".
And I am pointing out your inaccuracies as well. Is that a problem? Now I'm exploding?

Yes, I saw your response. I just didn't connect with it so I didn't say anything. If I say something
it'll sound like criticism, but it's just a difference between you and I. What you say is true, they
are ideas, ways of thinking, but they're also much more than that to me. They're also ways of living.
They are sciences that accurately describe the universe, the world, the man, the mind... To call them
ways of thinking allows that they are optional, which I suppose they are to an outsider. But is alchemy
optional to an alchemist? Is Qabala optional to a Qabalist?
So for me, your response is too general and represents an observation. I used the word "application" -
Qabala's application to alchemy. For me, your answer isn't what I'm interested in. You are basically
saying they are similar (which implies separation) and I am saying/seeing they are one and the same.
What I am saying is that one can't do alchemy without Qabala. Qabala isn't a system one learns, to me.
Qabala is seeing what is, seeing how nothing becomes something, seeing how ALHIM formed and
created the world. A true alchemists does the same as ALHIM/"God".[/QUOTE]

solomon levi
07-14-2012, 03:30 PM
(((((((((((((

solomon levi
07-14-2012, 03:32 PM
I recommend the study of some of the earlier sections of Raphael Patai's "The Jewish Alchemists" on Zosimus, Maria et al. Some of it is very... enlightening when read under the surface of what is actually being said.

Okay. Thanks Vega33. I'll have a look.

Bel Matina
07-15-2012, 06:51 AM
I tend to view קבלה as a sister tradition to Alchemy rather than as a foreign compliment. The Sefer Yetsirah, in particular, amounts to a manual of Neo-Platonic philosophy and astrology adapted for third-century Jewish sensibility and use. Understanding it in that light, and in the context of the exegetic tradition of its intended audience, sheds valuable light on third-century Alchemy. Once you've gotten to that point, it's also very interesting to look at the different places the Jewish branch of the tradition versus the Christian.

It's also worth noting that קבלה was not practiced by Ashkenazi Jews until the expulsion from Spain brought it to Northern Europe, so until that point it also doesn't make much sense to think of it as anything other than an insular variant of Alchemy. In the tenth century it was expressedly forbidden by Northern European rabbis.

zoas23
07-15-2012, 07:57 AM
Your truly believing it is what I find disturbing.
I truly believe that truly believing is the source of the problem and you don't see THAT.

Oh.... that was a language problem, what I wrote is a very usual figure of speech in Spanish that doesn't make sense in English.
(i.e, it is usual in Spanish to say: "I believe you are wrong" instead of "you are wrong" as a way of softening the sentence or not making it agressive... of course, this use of the world "believe" doesn't exist in English, but quite often I use words in English as if I was writing in Spanish -a bad translationg of my ideas due to a limited English).

I'm also fine with finishing the debate.


I tend to view קבלה as a sister tradition to Alchemy rather than as a foreign compliment. The Sefer Yetsirah, in particular, amounts to a manual of Neo-Platonic philosophy and astrology adapted for third-century Jewish sensibility and use. Understanding it in that light, and in the context of the exegetic tradition of its intended audience, sheds valuable light on third-century Alchemy. Once you've gotten to that point, it's also very interesting to look at the different places the Jewish branch of the tradition versus the Christian.

I couldn't agree more and it really makes me glad to read your post. I really think it is interesting to read the Sepher Yetzirah together with some other texts. Specially Plotinus' Enneads, Porphyry's Sententiae (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_sententiae_02_trans.htm), the Chaldean Oracles (a text that faked an old antiquity, but that is mostly contemporary of those same times), the Nag-Hammadi books and what remained of the corpus Hermeticum.
All of them have a quite identcal structure, but were directed at different audiences, sometimes with opposed intrests (i.e, Porphyry's and Plotinus dislike for Christianism and specially Gnostic Christianism). I would also add Philo of Alexandria, specially his book on Dreams (even if he "was there" several decades before the others).

It is interesting how neo-platonism spread itself like a virus in som many different cultural manifestations. Something interesting about the Qabalah is that it is quite easy to find de DNA of the "virus" we love.

But I really agree with you, those were ways of explaining the same philosopy to different audiences.

There's a phrase I LOVE by Wittgenstein: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.). He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly." (tractatus 6.54).

I love his metaphore of the ladder that has to be thrown away.... I mostly like the idea that the ladder is extremely important, but it's also extremely important to throw it away (the problem that a lot of people has is that they try to throw the ladder before climing it).

Ghislain
07-15-2012, 08:36 AM
Bel Matina, I have to admire your diplomatic use of the Hebrew קבלה

Even though there are many more ways to spell it, even in Hebrew :)

zoas23, the way you talk about the ladder and those that throw the ladder away before they have climbed it
I can relate to as I am guilty of this...my problem stems from there being many ladders out there and not knowing
which ladder to trust.

If the ladder is rickety and one climbs high upon it what happens when the ladder fails?

Do you have any solution to this?

Ghislain

Andro
07-15-2012, 08:49 AM
My problem stems from there being many ladders out there and not knowing which ladder to trust.

All ladders lead to 'Rome' :)


If the ladder is rickety and one climbs high upon it what happens when the ladder fails?

Then it was precisely the 'right' ladder for that particular climb, and it absolutely didn't 'fail' (it can't :)).

Zooming 'out', we're already ON a ladder.

Wheels within wheels, ladders within ladders, dreams within dreams.

solomon levi
07-15-2012, 09:51 AM
Well, I give up. You all can have this thread.

Bel Matina
07-15-2012, 09:55 AM
I think the ladder metaphor is pretty robust. If the latter is obviously rickety, don't climb it. Don't climb higher on a shaky ladder than you can stand the pain if you fall. The only way to find out how much pain you can stand is to fall off of a bunch of ladders.

I do like to delve deeply into the outward history of the tradition, but I'll be the first to admit that it's primarily a fetish; the stone is the stone is the stone. The more context you have, the more meaning you can tease out of a far distant message. So really it's squeezing blood from a stone, or perhaps better blood from the dry earth. I mean I've found some real gushers out there, don't get me wrong. Still, not everybody wants to learn a little bit of fifty dead languages or read books and books of guesswork about ancient cultures and try to pull what it means out of the breach. Talent and/or inclination aside (if they're different), I majored in linguistics and minored in anthropology - that gives me a real leg up trying to untangle two thousand years of not quite what I meant versus someone who's spent their time doing anything else. So really the ladder is not about who else can be trusted, but about what you can climb and what you feel like climbing.

I got a bit into my personal understanding of the word of God on another thread, but if the assembled will tolerate some redundancy, I think it has relevance here, especially condition as it is by the Sefer Yetsirah. The reason the SY has to add the letters to the Neo-Platonic cosmogony is because of the wording of Genesis in the creation, which was already since the Babylonian exile considered to be unassailable dogmatic truth. I'm referring in particular to the line translated in the King James version "Let there be light," although I could quibble with the translation. The line in Hebrew is ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור. Somewhat literally translated, that's "and gods ordered it should be light and it was light." Did you notice that יהי אור ויהי אור bit? The ו in ויהי is the conjunction. "It should be light" and "it was light" in this sentence are pronounced exactly the same.

The implication that I take from it, and that many before me have, is that there's some kind of directly responsive relationship between God speaking and things happening. It's broad enough that a muslim friend of mine with no background or even interest in Hebrew or Jewish thought whatsover likes to say, "God speaks, and it is." From a Neo-Platonic perspective, taking Mercury/3 as "speaking", it pans out to an isomorphy to the point of functional identity. This is certainly what I hear when I read from Israel Regardie that at the highest grade of Golden Dawn initiation you take an oath to treat every experience as a conversation with God.

In my roundabout way I've come back to the point. If you're a monist, and know I'm not the only one here, all words are one word, and it doesn't so much matter their dignity or provenance; you can hear the truth from the mouth of a liar as much as from the mouth of a saint.

I think you'd find it challenging to find someone who loves words more than me (as much I'll buy, maybe) so you can take that for what it's worth.

Bel Matina
07-15-2012, 10:13 AM
I have to say, Solomon, I wish you wouldn't give this thread up. Before the two of you got sidetracked by your argument about spelling, you were having a very meaningful discussion questioning the quality of the Qabballah passed down by the Golden Dawn. While I prefer modifier words over spelling distinctions as a means of separating them, even if you're talking strictly within the Jewish community the term Qabballah covers disparate traditions over at least two millennia, some of which are apples and oranges. If you want more detail I recommend Aryeh Kaplan's "Meditation and Kabballah", which despite the title is really a history of the different streams, limited of course to those within the Jewish community. For my part, I'll tender that what's put forward by Della Mirandola and the other Hermetic sources I've seen is I would take more as Alchemy fortified with Qabballah - once you take the Rabbinic mindset out of Alchemy with a Rabbinic mindset... In this respect I side firmly with Solomon.

And for the record, it's just קבלה. You only use vowel marks and consonant doubling marks in the bible and in textbooks.

solomon levi
07-15-2012, 11:27 AM
AMR is equivalent to greek/new testament logos, word, verbum.
It's just interesting to notice the same parts of the equation are here as in John 1.
We have the word, which is with God/ALHIM and IS God, and then we have light as well.
This is showing the triunity present in all manifestation.

The conjunction, V, is 'and' but also joining, union, marriage, impregnation...
What I see here is "existence as light impregnating/folding into existence as light".
"The verb ALHIM (because "God", the IM/sea of ALH/awareness, is not a noun/thing) existing as
light/AVR/Aleph penetrating/V the Universe/Raysh, folded in on itself."

We see from the next sentence:
וירא אלהים את־האור כי־טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך׃
that the action of light folding in on itself makes it alive/living/aware - HAVR.
H means "the", but much more than that. God didn't say "let there be THE light before.
And now both times in this sentence it is suddenly "the" light.
This "living" which is a poor interpretation of "self-aware" IMO, light is now also "good"/TVB,
but this is actually saying, and this is my personal interpretation, that light exists dimensionally.
The autiot Tith/9/serpent/coil/surround, "penetrating"/V Bith/"within"/archetypal container, being contained.
In other words, it's explaining the appearance/affect/result of light folding in on itself:
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-W6Qlyo1tVkSyyA8V5xrDNfYQCetNw4yd4j12uAmgtwER7BI2

solomon levi
07-15-2012, 11:43 AM
I have to say, Solomon, I wish you wouldn't give this thread up. Before the two of you got sidetracked by your argument about spelling, you were having a very meaningful discussion questioning the quality of the Qabballah passed down by the Golden Dawn. While I prefer modifier words over spelling distinctions as a means of separating them, even if you're talking strictly within the Jewish community the term Qabballah covers disparate traditions over at least two millennia, some of which are apples and oranges. If you want more detail I recommend Aryeh Kaplan's "Meditation and Kabballah", which despite the title is really a history of the different streams, limited of course to those within the Jewish community. For my part, I'll tender that what's put forward by Della Mirandola and the other Hermetic sources I've seen is I would take more as Alchemy fortified with Qabballah - once you take the Rabbinic mindset out of Alchemy with a Rabbinic mindset... In this respect I side firmly with Solomon.

And for the record, it's just קבלה. You only use vowel marks and consonant doubling marks in the bible and in textbooks.

But I don't care to talk about QBLHs history. I hardly care what anyone in the past said or interpreted.
I can read it myself. I understand it better than Suares related it.
I want to talk about the "meat" of it with people who "see".
Like in my first post and this last post.
I don't care about anything else. This is alive for me.
I don't care to speculate as if I am separate from it, or to be judged or side-tracked by people who can't "see".
No one here comments on what I talk about. Rarely does any talk WITH me. If you can, I'll stick around.

Bel Matina
07-15-2012, 12:02 PM
Solomon - I know you're in more of a solve place right now but I'm starting to lose track of your aim in what you're saying. If I'm reading right, you're saying with what I guess is your new vocabulary things you've said clearer and better in other venues. While it's true that the only way to learn a language is by speaking it, I would recommend you first come to Qabballah on its own terms and then try to reconcile it with the art you know. Otherwise, what you're going to end up with is Alchemy with a Jewish accent. Naturally, the same goes for any other tradition, be it Yoga, Chinese Medicine, or whatever.

As far as communicating what you're trying to say goes, you might want to consider putting every link in your chain of thought at least two ways. Even somewhat familiar with everything you're talking about, it can take a lot of time and effort to follow if I miss just one thing.

solomon levi
07-15-2012, 02:50 PM
Solomon - I know you're in more of a solve place right now but I'm starting to lose track of your aim in what you're saying. If I'm reading right, you're saying with what I guess is your new vocabulary things you've said clearer and better in other venues. While it's true that the only way to learn a language is by speaking it, I would recommend you first come to Qabballah on its own terms and then try to reconcile it with the art you know. Otherwise, what you're going to end up with is Alchemy with a Jewish accent. Naturally, the same goes for any other tradition, be it Yoga, Chinese Medicine, or whatever.

As far as communicating what you're trying to say goes, you might want to consider putting every link in your chain of thought at least two ways. Even somewhat familiar with everything you're talking about, it can take a lot of time and effort to follow if I miss just one thing.

I did notice it was pretty sloppy, my last post. I'll try to clean it up:

Bel Matina said:
"The line in Hebrew is ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור. Somewhat literally translated, that's "and gods ordered it should be light and it was light." Did you notice that יהי אור ויהי אור bit? The ו in ויהי is the conjunction. "It should be light" and "it was light" in this sentence are pronounced exactly the same."

So for people who don't know, hebrew is read right to left.
The first word on the right transliterated is VIAMR.
The V is "and" colloquially. The root is AMR, "said", but also the "word" or logos.
Sometimes DBR is used instead for word, speech. http://concordances.org/hebrew/1697.htm
But here AMR is significant because it is spelled similarly to light/AVR. The M-ness of AMR is about to
transmute into the V-ness of AVR through the interaction with ALHIM. It is significant that AMR, DBR
and AVR all end in R which is 200; two to the hundredth power; glyph of "the universe", that is "container of all",
"container on a cosmic scale".
The 2's are
B = 2, K = 20, R = 200
This everyone should know from Qabala. I can't teach all the basics here.
Again, anyone would know that B as a glyph and spelled out means "house, dwelling, container, within",
as in Beth Al - House of God, or Bethlehem - House of bread.


This is repeated in the New Testament in John1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Word/AMR, God/ALHIM, and light/AVR.

The Word/AMR, through ALHIM is going to become light/AVR having sex/6/V/relations with itself.

http://marlinsmiddleages.wikispaces.com/file/view/Alchemy4.png/225672284/258x288/Alchemy4.png


Now light is self-aware, living, represented by H as in HAVR.
If you "go within" and contemplate yourself, "become self-aware", your consciousness/awareness
folds upon itself. Same thing happened when AMR ALHIM became/IHI AVR VIHI AVR.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-W6Qlyo1tVkSyyA8V5xrDNfYQCetNw4yd4j12uAmgtwER7BI2

A "sphere"/Sephirah/di-mension is created.
Greek speira = band, rolled, encircled, folded
Hebrew T is the glyph of a serpent/spiral/coil - greek speirema = serpent coil/kundalini.
When "God saw that it was good"/TVB, he saw that it was coiled into a container/dimension.

The "mension" sulphur-fire and the "mension" salt-water create a DI-mension mercury-air,
an "abyssum duplicatum", an Hermetic seal/sel/sal(t).

E=mc2
E/m=c2
space-time = light2
AIN-SVP-AVR
becomes KThR - the soul between the organic container and the cosmic container.
KThR means "surround, crown, diadem".

Bel Matina
07-23-2012, 11:23 PM
I'm a little late in responding, but thank you, Solomon. That was much clearer.

As a curious aside, the root /ʔmr/ appears to be associated etymologically with what's called in philosophy of language "performative speech" as opposed to descriptive speech; for example "I now pronounce you man and wife," or, "I dub thee sir whatever," or "Go to your room." These are sentences that don't passively arise from a set of external conditions but rather create the conditions they describe. The more usual verb of speech is /ql/.

MarkostheGnostic
07-24-2012, 04:10 AM
Now light is self-aware, living, represented by H as in HAVR.
If you "go within" and contemplate yourself, "become self-aware", your consciousness/awareness
folds upon itself. Same thing happened when AMR ALHIM became/IHI AVR VIHI AVR.

"As Above, So Below." Macrocosm-Macrocosm. Macroprospus-Microprosopus. Brahman-Atman. Self-ego.

http://i49.tinypic.com/fxw01h.gif

solomon levi
08-05-2012, 11:44 AM
I've been getting clearer on insights into the hexagram as "the place" MKVN
http://concordances.org/hebrew/4349.htm

MChNIM - "double camp"
From the root, ChNH - "camp, bend down, encamp" but this itself has another root, ChN which is "grace, favor, charm".
This why they "bend down". This where they "camp", on a "place" of "grace".

And grace comes from God's "eye", the "eye" of providence, the source and fountain of existence, the blessing place:
"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" - Genesis 6:8

Also kamp in greek means "to bend" (consider folding space-time)

So back to "double camp":
"Now as Jacob went on his way, the angels of God met him. Jacob said when he saw them, “This is God’s camp.” So he named that place Mahanaim." - Genesis 32:1

So why does he call it "double camp"/MChNIM?
Well, I don't know how they get double camp from this. IM is plural, not necessarily two.
And M means "from" and ChN is "grace" - so it says "from graces" or "from the sea of grace".
But the double-ness is again implied by the two triangles which signify a union - not only
God's providence/grace/emanation, but a return/reciprocal acknowledgement/reflection in water.

Kerux - herald, messenger
And we already know the relation between the Kerux and the staff of Mercury, the kerukieon.
There is also a gematria connection between khruxon/herald =708 and ChN/grace (N final) = 708
Another herald, messenger is aggelos/angel/messenger. Sometimes this is written
diaggelw/messenger, "double"/di-messenger/angel = 886
Spirit/pneumati = 886:
"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes
I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit (pneumati), and with fire." - Matt: 3:11
http://www.biblewheel.com/Gr/GR_Database.asp?bnum=40&cnum=3&vnum=11

Another reference to John the baptist says:
"He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light." - John 5:35
luchnos ho kaiomenos kai phainwn ("w" = Omega)
Kaiomenos means "burning" from kaiw, "to ignite"
Dikaiwma means "righteousness, what has been established" and = 886 :)
Two/di ignitions.

BTW - our Laton/Latona - Ladwna = 886

solomon levi
08-05-2012, 12:03 PM
There is more I want to share about this double abyss

http://marlinsmiddleages.wikispaces.com/file/view/Alchemy4.png/225672284/258x288/Alchemy4.png


Consider the superior abyss corresponding to emptiness, explosion, go without
and the inferior abyss to fullness/pleroma, implosion, go within. Or vice-versa if you prefer.
The point is, life/stuff happens in the double-space, abyssum duplicatum, "double camp".

There is also the recognition that air and earth are mani(manna)fested simultaneously
from the union of fire and water.

Also another gematria link between abyssos (1087) and ThPARThV (1087) which means beauty,
and is related to Tiphareth, the sixth sephirah.

Also ChN (58/708) = HABN (58/708) "the stone".
And also NBV/Nebo/Mercury = 58

Ghislain
08-05-2012, 02:19 PM
From Latin Mahanaim = “Jacob”

Pneuma in English = “the vital spirit; the soul.”

Pneuma in Latin = “a breath”

Latona from Latin to English = Leto; the mother by Zeus of Apollo and Artemis, called Latona by the Romans.

Leto in Latin = “Death/Destruction”

Ghislain

Bel Matina
08-07-2012, 03:57 AM
The suffices "iim" and "ayim", respectively plural and dual, are spelled identically (yodh mim) in Hebrew. Weak roots like ChN and ChNH are not necessarily related etymologically, but obviously their gematric relationship still holds.