Daath
-
@Alrah said
"
@Infernal Seraph said
"There's so much about the Abyss I don't know and can't know in this life."Never a truer word spoken. The abyss is suckedy stuckness. I love it that you added the word 'know' to that sentence!
"I'm not asking about the abyss. I'm asking about Daath. So far, in a Thelemic forum, the "Luciferian" is the only one who's said anything remotely informative.
Maybe a better question. Does anyone know of Qabalistic tradition regarding this matter? How did the ancients conceive of Daath?
-
@JPF said
"Maybe a better question. Does anyone know of Qabalistic tradition regarding this matter? How did the ancients conceive of Daath?"
It was a late development. Maybe do earlier than 13th Century (I'd have to research to pin that down). So the ancients didn't really conceive of it at all - the Ruach hadn't developed that far.
Bennett's remark is based on Golden Dawn diagrams, especially one from the 4=7. (There is no "solid" abive Chesed, which, as 4 points, first defines 3 dimensions.) Crowley's remarks were based on what he was told in the visions of Liber 418.
There are earlier threads on this forum - perhaps from two or three years back - discussing Daath more thoroughly, so I won't repeat what I probably said there.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It was a late development. Maybe do earlier than 13th Century (I'd have to research to pin that down). So the ancients didn't really conceive of it at all - the Ruach hadn't developed that far.
Bennett's remark is based on Golden Dawn diagrams, especially one from the 4=7. (There is no "solid" abive Chesed, which, as 4 points, first defines 3 dimensions.) Crowley's remarks were based on what he was told in the visions of Liber 418.
There are earlier threads on this forum - perhaps from two or three years back - discussing Daath more thoroughly, so I won't repeat what I probably said there."
Thank you, Jim. That's just what I was looking for. I'll check out the other threads.
-
Here's one: heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?t=2436
-
93, I don't have most my materials with me at the moment, but Da'ath is one those tings that caught my attention a while back, and calls me back every so often.
One view of Da'ath is that it is a part, perhaps the "lower" part, of Binah(Understanding)--the crystallization of that understanding.
I have pondered the idea that Da'ath really contains all that is below the Abyss, a crystal fracturing that One Pure Light of the Source, so that all the division is merely maya. We are all true, and yet the maya is in the idea that we are seperate from the rest of the Whole.
Just a couple of thoughts. I'll post more later, if I remember. Lol. -
Honestly, this discussion has brought us to a place where I have a few significant ideas about Da'ath that will put a 'brand new spin' on the whole issue. But, I think it might be best if I discuss this one on one with those who are interested (PM me); or, I might consider discussing it in open forum if there is enough interest (it would make for a rather lengthy post, which is one of my hesitations).
Peace Profound to All,
93 93/93
Neshamah -
We're here to exchange ideas. By all means, share it (I say)!
-
93,
Well, I've been digging through some my old journals, notes etc. From one my older journals:
"Where we see Da'ath written simply as Knowledge, the simple adding of a word greatly changes the meaning--nay, reveals its nature. The word experiential. A Jewish Kabbalist on a yahoo group said that Da'ath is exerienial knowldge. This phrasing put some peices together for me, as far as its nature. It also makes sense why Da'ath is called the "abortive child." When creation was first created, there was no experience to be had but that of creation itself, thus there was no experience. Da'ath was oft describe to me as crystallised, which, to me, describes experience in creation[or knowledge therein]. I find its positioning on the Tree even more descriptive of its importance. It may have been abortive at its beginning, but in our working up the Tree, to Union with God, this Sephirah becomes a pricless jewel--the Pearl of Great Price. While the initial idea of the Sephirah is that of creation(in the created sense, God-created), the final is of creation(in the created sense, Man-formed). Man, created, seeks to return to God, to the Paradise of Before. In doing so, he seeks to create his Philosopher's Stone, to discover his Pearl of Great Price. It's placement is in the Abyss, which we must cross to reach all that which we seek. The mode of crossing, then, in my understanding, would be the forming of this Stone, then the surrendering of it to that which we seek. In reference to Our Lady Babalon, to Her Cup that we surrender all that we are, I find this quite revealing."
Back tosearching for other entries. I handwrite my MD, so....
-
@FiliusBestia said
"93,
Well, I've been digging through some my old journals, notes etc. From one my older journals:
"Where we see Da'ath written simply as Knowledge, the simple adding of a word greatly changes the meaning--nay, reveals its nature. The word experiential. A Jewish Kabbalist on a yahoo group said that Da'ath is exerienial knowldge. This phrasing put some peices together for me, as far as its nature. It also makes sense why Da'ath is called the "abortive child." When creation was first created, there was no experience to be had but that of creation itself, thus there was no experience. Da'ath was oft describe to me as crystallised, which, to me, describes experience in creation[or knowledge therein]. I find its positioning on the Tree even more descriptive of its importance. It may have been abortive at its beginning, but in our working up the Tree, to Union with God, this Sephirah becomes a pricless jewel--the Pearl of Great Price. While the initial idea of the Sephirah is that of creation(in the created sense, God-created), the final is of creation(in the created sense, Man-formed). Man, created, seeks to return to God, to the Paradise of Before. In doing so, he seeks to create his Philosopher's Stone, to discover his Pearl of Great Price. It's placement is in the Abyss, which we must cross to reach all that which we seek. The mode of crossing, then, in my understanding, would be the forming of this Stone, then the surrendering of it to that which we seek. In reference to Our Lady Babalon, to Her Cup that we surrender all that we are, I find this quite revealing."
Back tosearching for other entries. I handwrite my MD, so...."
Interesting words. I've found also in my studies that Uranus is attributed to Daath. Meditation on this has lead to amusing insights, but on the whole I am finding that Daath is a very duplicitous Sephira. There are many words both for and against it, and a variety of traditions. So, in Uranian bent, I choose to believe nothing, and suspect everything.
-
@JPF said
"Interesting words. I've found also in my studies that Uranus is attributed to Daath. Meditation on this has lead to amusing insights, but on the whole I am finding that Daath is a very duplicitous Sephira. There are many words both for and against it, and a variety of traditions. So, in Uranian bent, I choose to believe nothing, and suspect everything."
I agree with the duplicity, which is why I can't at all agree with Uranus - which is naked truth. Were I to attribute a planet to the Abyss it would be Neptune - which is the essence of duplicity! (Among other reasons.)
Neptune = Da'ath. Chokmah = Uranus. Kether = Pluto. (If you want to go down that road.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree with the duplicity, which is why I can't at all agree with Uranus - which is naked truth. Were I to attribute a planet to the Abyss it would be Neptune - which is the essence of duplicity! (Among other reasons.)"
I was going off of Crowley's "General Principles of Astrology," in which he attributes Uranus to Daath and Neptune to Chokmah. Then again, Astrology was never Crowley's strong point.
-
I don't believe that we can go back the "original Tree" and learn anything useful. Was it Malkuth who occupied that position between Chokmah and Binah? Was it Tiphareth? Was it Yesod? I have read convincing arguments for each of these* "original configuations,"* and most of them have few 'salient' points, in the end.
I believe that since we can't really get back to that distant time (whenever it was) we should begin our examination and our exploration of the Tree as it exists for us today. One of my favorite quotes from the Sefer Yetzirah: "There are ten and not nine, ten and not eleven." Making Da'ath a Sephira is not only wrong, it flies in the face of the clear instructions we have for comprehension of the Tree as it is.
As most are aware, the word "da'ath" in Hebrew means "knowledge." Interesting how this sephirah that isn't a sephirah is placed between the two Sephirah of Binah (Understanding) and Chokmah (Wisdom). Is 'Knowledge' somehow the 'bridge' between these two concepts? If we have enough 'Knowledge' will we be able to 'understand' with our 'wisdom' the nature of the Tree, the nature of Man, and the nature of what has happened to creation to place us in this mess -- alienation from one another and from God?
The Sephirah Kether sits atop this Binah - Chokmah combination, and it clearly 'comprehends' the nature of the two (Understanding and Wisdom). Is this what the serpent meant when he told humanity that we'd be like god? That we'd have a 'view' of the Sephirah closest to God? It is clear to most, however, that Da'ath is a poor *'reflection' *of the glory that is Kether. Yes, it is the serpent in Genesis that offers "Knowledge;" but it is not just any 'knowledge' that he is offering, it is the 'knowledge of good and evil.' This seems to me to be a logical outcome for someone who *'Understands' *and has 'Wisdom.' However, Da'ath sees these Sephirah from the bottom; it is Kether that sees them from the top, and in that divine vision, understands the two Sephirah (and their relationships) far more deeply than Da'ath ever can or could.
The serpent is offering the gift of godhood -- perhaps not in this present lifetime, but in those that follow, as the 'knowledge' learned in one incarnation gets *'carried over' into the next. And, as our 'knowledge' continues to grow, not just through the serpent's "gift," *but through our own experienes over several lifetimes, we learn to create a "bridge" -- not a Sephirah (just as Pluto is not a planet), but a "bridge" that enables us to 'close the loop' between "Understanding" and "Wisdom;" and in so doing, we become the gods we were always meant to be.
However, our "Knowledge" will always remain limited as we are seeing the relationship of Understanding and Wisdom from the bottom (from humanity UP). It is only until we are able to somehow unite with Kether that we will see that all our "Knowledge," all our "Understanding," and all our "Wisdom," is as illusion.
These are just my thoughts. I'm eager to hear yours,
**93 93/93
Neshamah ** -
I forgot something that I think I should add:
I see Chokmah as Uranus. The Masloth (Starry Heavens) seems to correspond to Uranus more closely than any others.
I see Kether as Neptune: The definition of Kether as the "primordial swirlings" seems to describe Kether much better than Pluto (which is a large rock -- with perhaps ice and iron as part of its make-up.
I see Da'ath as Pluto: The Sephirah that is not a Sephirah is best exemplified as a planet that isn't a planet. Furthermore, in astrology, Pluto is a planet of Transformation, which is best portrayed as the non-Sephirah Da'ath (**Pluto **is very often closely associated with death -- as the non-Sephirah of Da'ath).
I left this out of my previous post; I felt that this information might be helpful in understanding some of my concepts and ideas above.
Peace to all.
93 93/93
Neshamah -
I've stayed out of this because (1) I didn't have time to write it up right and (2) this has all been covered in many other threads. But, for those interested enough to click on links and dig, here are some posts I've made on this subject (directly or indirectly) in the past:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3869&p=19559">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3869&p=19559</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4741&p=23912">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4741&p=23912</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3318&p=19615">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3318&p=19615</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3290&p=17624">viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3290&p=17624</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3290&p=17622">viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3290&p=17622</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2514&p=13780">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2514&p=13780</a><!-- l --> -
"I don't believe that we can go back the "original Tree" and learn anything useful. Was it Malkuth who occupied that position between Chokmah and Binah? Was it Tiphareth? Was it Yesod? I have read convincing arguments for each of these "original configuations," and most of them have few 'salient' points, in the end."
I ponder frequently the idea that Da'ath isn't a sephirah because it stands for the entire Tree below it.
In other words, if the three Supernals and Da'ath are considered in terms of an equal-armed cross, Da'ath is that "disunity" at the bottom end of the spectrum of which Khether is the top. That "disunity" is represented by all the myriad expressions of the self which gain individual, experiential knowledge - or as individual centers of conscious expression.
But these individual centers of expression each have elements within them that reflect aspects of the Supernal Triad, so it's necessary to kind of ....click on the thumbnail image at Da'ath... enlarge it... and then compare the "enlarged map of Da'ath" (aspects of each individuality) to the Supernals - which gives us the Tree as we know it.
Da'ath is the sephira that "is not" because it marks the end of the "enlarged map," where consciousness of individuality ends, and one can only then think in terms of the Supernals.
Just a hypothesis.
Thoughts?
p.s. Jim posted just before I did, and I haven't had time to read any of the links.. Peace.
-
And the earth is flat, you know, and if you sail far enough you will fall off the end.
(Just teasing.) -
@Jim Eshelman said
"And the earth is flat, you know, and if you sail far enough you will fall off the end.
(Just teasing.)"Is this meant for me? I'm not sure I understand why my post prompted you to see me as a member of the Flat Earth Society.
@Frater LR said
"gah gah... goo goo..."
I don't know what to say to this. I really don't see my position as being childish; in fact, I have over 100 pages of material that helps prove my approach (along with pages and pages of endnotes and a Bibliography).
At any rate, I can take a hint.