Sepiroth vs Kundalini
-
"Chakras subjective? I don't think so. Especially since they're all anchored by major nerve clusters, they're as objective as, say, your arm."
I agree with the objection against the word subjective here. This however should not (and I don´t think that you are doing so) be used as an argument for a fundamentalist view of 7 chakras end of story specific pattern according to a popular chakrasystem that was brought to the west and then made popular by the teosophic society (if I am not incorrect).
There are other chakra systems. Only experience will prove what is most fruitful for the individual adept. Empirical study is the method of occultism, not dogma and popular opinion.
People are different, on the inside and on the outside. The word cripple is not really fitting here, but it points to the fact that even on the outside, people are really different. -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Arsihsis said
"Another possible distinction is the consideration of the Sephiroth as being objective & the Chakras, like the Paths, as being subjective."Chakras subjective? I don't think so. Especially since they're all anchored by major nerve clusters, they're as objective as, say, your arm."
I had come to the same conclusion based on the placement of the double letters upon the TOL. Are the Paths not considered subjective & the Sepirot objective? Nerve clusters constitute an objective existence, but is the experience of them not entirely subjective?
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Arsihsis said
"Another possible distinction is the consideration of the Sephiroth as being objective & the Chakras, like the Paths, as being subjective."Chakras subjective? I don't think so. Especially since they're all anchored by major nerve clusters, they're as objective as, say, your arm."
I had come to the same conclusion based on the placement of the double letters upon the TOL. Are the Paths not considered subjective & the Sepirot objective? Nerve clusters constitute an objective existence, but is the experience of them not entirely subjective?"
I think this is mixing planes. The Paths and Sephiroth sometimes are considered subjective vs. objective with respect to each other, but not necessarily in comparison to any other phenomena. That is, in terms (for example) of the day-to-day "real world," Geburah is no more objective (nor, for that matter, less objective) than Peh.
-
Does traditional Kabbalah support the interpretation that the Serpent is required to re-ascend the Tree or was it Crowley who added it the Tree as a central initiatory process?
-
It definitely precedes AC. For example it appears in the GD 2=9, 4=7, and 5=6 grades.
-
Is there any historical precedent before the GD of combining the Serpent with the Tree or was the GD the first to do this?
-
-
@he atlas itch said
"Is there any historical precedent before the GD of combining the Serpent with the Tree or was the GD the first to do this?"
I don't remember, without researching anew. The ideas have been there for centuries or longer. I'd have to go back through collections of Medieval trees etc. to see what I could find.
Of course, the origin is at least a little earlier, because the core diagrams were in the Cypher Mss. on which the G.D. rituals were based.
It might be easier to research if you could say exactly which era you want to know about. (It sounds like you are curious whether Kabbalists of a specific era used the serpent as a symbol in this way.)
Going entirely from gut feel and having not looked it up, I would be surprised if this preceded the late 16th century.
-
I would like to find any historical precedent within traditional Kabbalah that supports the view that the Serpent is a necessary initiator for ascending the Tree. My guess is, it won't be found in any era and the combining of the Serpent with the Tree is, in fact, a ***fairly-recent ***European syncretization that emerged from the British coming in contact with kundalini yogins in India during the 19th century. Arthur Avalon's The Serpent Power, a translation of Tantric texts in Sanskrit, was first published in 1913 and considered to be the primary source for introducing kundalini yoga to Europe along with the Theosophical Society.
Of course kundalini awakening is possible for anyone, not just Indian yogins, so my question is whether there is any historical evidence within the Judaic tradition of Kabbalah to justify the view that the Serpent and Tree are compatible prior to the GD. My guess is - no.
-
I dunno. Haven't had a chance to dig. - Of course, if what you say is correct, that that is what Qabalah became and is. (I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting to distinguish whether or not the Rabbis used the serpent in this way, and I'm not sure what they are or what practical difference it makes to people seeking spiritual goals today.)
It's clear that Moses and his brother were employing a predominantly serpent-based magick. Their magick is infused with this symbol and its force at every turn. (Don't miss the extremely important Numbers 21:8-9, and its citation in John 3:14. These are the basis of an important G.D. 4=7 instruction.)