Understanding
-
I still think there is nothing better than Dion Fortune's The Mystical Qabalah - except, don't read the intro chapters at first. Cut straight to the chapters on the 10 Sephiroth and read them straight through.
-
@Donna said
"It has no immediate rationale, no easy, "Okay, that makes sense" start-point to it. It never explains itself, it starts where it starts, and keeps going."
I used to think this, too. Then I found Colin Low's brilliant "Notes on Kabbalah:"
www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/nok/index.htmHe has a background in physics and math, and it shows, as he "derives" the Tree from first principles. I don't think it's too much of an overstatement to say that he convincingly shows how the Tree arises as a logical necessity. (Well, maybe that is an overstatement... I don't want to start pointing at the letters C.A.T. and saying "here kitty kitty...")
(There's probably no coincidence, Jim, that Colin Low acknowledges the Dion Fortune tradition as his primary influence!)
Steve
-
[Jim Eshelman"]*I still think there is nothing better than Dion Fortune's *The Mystical Qabalah
Thanks, Jim. This is the book I began with and I have read it a couple of times and keep it to refer back for reference, but for some reason it has not helped me get past the disjointedness. This is frustrating because I breezed thru college and grad school but I can't seem to wrap my mind around this more than a bit at a time, which I lose when I try to map it systemically. I'm a whole-to-part learner but the Tree of Life does not seem to be able to be comprehended that way.
Donna -
[Steve said] I used to think this, too. Then I found Colin Low's brilliant "Notes on Kabbalah:"
www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/nok/index.htmSteve, this definitely sounds like a book I need to read; I'm ordering it today. I am convinced that the basics are all there by now, but I need a way to pull it all together so that my mind can really use it.
Thanks!
Donna -
Donna, 93,
I wonder if there's a wider issue here. Some people simply click with Qabalah, others find it wildly over-complex and unprovable, at least initially. The 'clickers' can jump straight in - sure, God-Name, Archangel, Angel and manifestation in Assiah. Awesome! And ten sets of them to play with!!
Other people find it artificial, or over-worked. I know I did when I first encountered it years ago. It didn't tie in to anything with which I was familiar. Is that what you're asking about?
From your question, I take it you're in the second category, and simply getting more information won't help a lot. There's an essential conceptual blockage I think you're expressing, and from other responses to various posts, I don't think you're alone.
I imagine for some people it's a historical issue - they have no personal context into which they can slot Qabalah as a spiritual system, so it just seems to be floating there as a series of lists. For others, it might be a more basic resistance to systems as a whole, or an inability to relate to Qabalah in any kind of personal way.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Donna said
"This is the book I began with and I have read it a couple of times and keep it to refer back for reference, but for some reason it has not helped me get past the disjointedness."
Can you say more about the disjointedness? About what seems disconnected with what?
This is a fascinating question for me because the one thing that, from the beginning, was most obvious to me was the interconnectedness and patterned relationship of the 10 Sephiroth - and it was Fortune who gave me that. It seems a particular strong point of her book. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're seeking here.
-
How do you learn?
Is it through visual images? Is through sound and hearing things?
Perhaps the image of the tree is disjointed to you because it is like a mosaic that forms no picture.
There are many ways to view the tree, other than the form of a tree with globes on it.
One of the ways is to view it as an onion. The inner layer being Kether which surrounds the nothing in the middle, the Ain Soph, which is the source of the whole onion shape.
Each of the Sephorith can be envisioned as a larger more substantial layer. The last layer would be the most tough, the outer skin, and the biggest, the one you see, Malkuth, the Kingdom or most concrete manifestation of the core. The core is dark space but it shapes all the others. It also is space, so it permeates the whole onion, as space is everywhere in between the layers, as well as between the atoms.
I would suggest that you look at different representations of the Tree. I also think you should list the attributes of each sephorith sort of that way in your mind.
Kether is White. See a white layer, then a Grey for Chokmah, then a larger Black layer for Binah, etc.
You can do it with the names of God, the symbols, etc.
When you do that, you see a progression, a pattern.
I suggest Robert Wang's Qabalistic Tarot, which has the cards of four decks, one of which is the Thoth, that illustrates the principles of the Tree and how the energy flow works.
Another way, is to view the Tree as a human body, the Adam Kadmon. A body works simultaneously on all kinds of levels at once. Yet your head is a little different from your feet!
Hope this is helpful.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
93
Donna wrote:
"I have been reading about and studying the Tree of Life for a couple of years now and I still bump into walls regularly. How does the Tree of Life and everything that hangs on it seem to have been cut from whole cloth?"
For what it's worth, when I started reading about Qabalah I felt that it was complex and over-intellectualized. I had that experience before, when reading Nietzsche. But something continued to draw me to study it, in the beginning on and off, and later with small realizations and insights, on a more regular basis.
Having taken a few steps, I can see a beauty in the structure, in the system. I think Qabalah is very human, if that makes any sense.
Donna wrote:
"
Others who have posted recently don't necessarily accept Qabalah as 'proven' or valid, even if they do see themselves as Thelemites, or fellow travellers, but they seem to have a better grasp. What is recommended as the entry point for understanding??"Start where you are: in Malkuth, the world of physical manifestation. I suppose you can start with Ain [Nothing] intellectually and work your way back, but it seems easier to work the other way around, since that's where we are.
I once thought of Qabalah as nothing more than a classification system, a way of organizing 'your world,' making it easier to interact with. I still think that idea is functional, it's just that now it appears to encompass more than I thought it would.
93, 93/93
-
@Donna said
"[Steve said]
www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/nok/index.htm
Steve, this definitely sounds like a book I need to read; I'm ordering it today."By now, if you've clicked on the link, you've found that it's a free PDF there for the downloading. The part that I was thinking the most about was Chapter 2, his "construction" of the Tree of Life.
Since I still have yet to read Fortune's Mystical Qabalah, I can't tell you how much of Low's description is derived from good ol' Violet Mary.
Steve
-
Donna, my reason for asking for more information on where you aren't seeing it all come together is that I could elaborate for weeks, month, maybe years on this subject - and still might not touch on the angle that is importan to you.
Is it that you don't see the path of derivation? How one Sephirah flows forth naturally from its predecessor? Or is it that you don' see the patterns and interrelationships inherent in the finished product?
Some patterns to particularly notice in the finished product:
-- The three Pillars, and their distinctive characteristics (almost independent of the Sephiroth on them).
-- The three triangles and Malkuth pendant and their internal patterns.
-- The planetary sequence: Evolution from Big Bang / White Hole center (Kether) to the whole field of stars or open space (Chokmah) to the descending pattern of the planets Saturn through Luna, then the field of Elements which composites the planetary idea of Earth.
-- The Tetragrammaton: Spheres 1-2 are Yod, 3 is Heh, 4-9 is Vav, 10 is Heh-final. This is one of the earliest and most important!
Those are some basics. Is this the sort of thing you mean, or something else?
-
Wow, guys. Now I know why Edward has been encouraging me to voice some of my questions to the forum. Your quick response is overwhelming (in a good way.) I've been out all day and just got home to find all of your responses. Thanks!
To Steve: Yes, I've downloaded it to my home computer and laptop so I can pull it up whenever I've got some spare time as well as setting aside time to read and meditate on it. Thanks for directing me to the 2nd chapter especially. That he offers this whole thing as a free download knocks my socks off.
I've got to go back and print out the other responses before I can reply but it will be sometime tonight.
Donna
-
@Edward Mason said
"Other people find it artificial, or over-worked. I know I did when I first encountered it years ago. It didn't tie in to anything with which I was familiar. Is that what you're asking about? "
93 Edward,
The idea of it not tying into anything with which I am familiar is a part of it, but I have learned new systems before and run easily with them. I think though, that the gravity and importance of this knowledge separates it from the rest and so, I am perhaps demanding more of myself than is required at this point in my path.
Rather than trying to bite off the whole thing at once, I might do better to concentrate on the level on which I dwell and get to know it in-depth and simply be content with a working knowledge of the rest of it, until I reach the next level. Does this sound feasible or is it a cop-out?
93, 93/93
Donna -
@Jim Eshelman said
"Can you say more about the disjointedness? About what seems disconnected with what?
This is a fascinating question for me because the one thing that, from the beginning, was most obvious to me was the interconnectedness and patterned relationship of the 10 Sephiroth - and it was Fortune who gave me that. It seems a particular strong point of her book. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're seeking here."
93 Jim,
It seems as if my problem lies more in trying to inhale the whole thing at once instead of being content with working on it one level at a time. There is definitely an awareness of the structure of the system, I am not quite as lost as I might have seemed, but I guess I am just impatient with myself more than anything else.
When I am around people who talk about levels easily I wonder why I can't keep up with the conversation, but it occurs to me that everyone I talk with on my trips to Toronto and now LA have years and years of study and experience under their belts.
The sense of fragmentation has more to do with not being able to keep up with comments like for example, about something being at the Briatic level, for instance. I have to stop and access that file in my head and scroll through it to understand what they're saying and by then the conversation has moved on. My frustration is in my inability to keep more than a couple of balls in the air at once.
93s,
Donna -
@Chris Hanlon said
"Perhaps the image of the tree is disjointed to you because it is like a mosaic that forms no picture. There are many ways to view the tree, other than the form of a tree with globes on it."
93 Chris!
That is a very good insight, thanks. The onion analogy is much more real to me and easier to work with, thanks!
The only other form I knew about was the Cube of Space which was more confusing to me because I was not already grounded in the Tree and had no additional frame of reference to correlate it to. Your suggestion of an onion is much more concrete. It also underlines the fact that I am only learning one level at a time before peeling it to expose the next one (even though I know that the onion in my hand encompasses it all). I can comprehend it so much better in this form.
Thanks again.
In L.V.X.,
Donna -
93 Draco,
Yes, it did seem overly-complex and intellectualized at first, and then I began to realize that the details were needed to flesh it out. I am not in any way complaining, as I see the beauty of it and sense the flow of energies. I guess it will just take time and my impatience with myself is no doubt, something else I should be working on.
Thanks for your help.
93s,
Donna -
@Jim Eshelman said
"... Is it that you don't see the path of derivation? How one Sephirah flows forth naturally from its predecessor? Or is it that you don't see the patterns and interrelationships inherent in the finished product?"
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
It is the latter, definitely, so thank you for your list of patterns. Some I knew and others are new to me, especially the last two. In order to truly understand and be able to work with something, having contexts in which to place them are important for me. Fortune is great for information, but my problem has been more with the contexts and interrelationships.
Thanks for your help, Jim. It was great to be there last month.
Love is the Law, love under will.
In L.V.X.,
Donna -
@Donna said
"I guess I am just impatient with myself more than anything else."
Ah, yes. Well, though it doesn't take a lifetime to learn your way around the basic neighborhood, it does take many years of using the Tree of Life as a world model to have a from-the-inside-out understanding of it.
"When I am around people who talk about levels easily I wonder why I can't keep up with the conversation, but it occurs to me that everyone I talk with on my trips to Toronto and now LA have years and years of study and experience under their belts."
Yes. Also, please remember that some people who sound completely at home and super-competent with it are only approaching it intellectually and playing back what they've read or heard - this doesn't mean that they have any great understanding. (There is admittedly a lot of potential value in "fake it until you make it.")
"The sense of fragmentation has more to do with not being able to keep up with comments like for example, about something being at the Briatic level, for instance. I have to stop and access that file in my head and scroll through it to understand what they're saying and by then the conversation has moved on. My frustration is in my inability to keep more than a couple of balls in the air at once."
One can't always slow a conversation that's going like a locomotive... but it might be a splendid idea, when you can, to stop and ask for a definition or clarification, especially because not everyone is using the terms in the same way (or in a way that they have clearly defined in their own minds). Sometimes this will make you seem a nuisance
and sometimes it will significantly enrich the conversation. (And you may not be the only one standing or sitting around who doesn't really know what was just said. Just because everyone else is nodding wisely doesn't mean that they are following along, right?) -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Wow, Jim.
Bingo. These things are exactly what I've needed to hear! You've also reminded me that I need to let go of my perfectionism and just jump in. Much obliged.
Love is the Law, love under will.
In L.V.X.,
Donna