Questions?

[Revelation]

With the intent of giving everyone who's interested a fair shot at this overly-nebulous subject matter, why don't we dedicate a thread to general questions about Kabbalah? I'm sure both Mol and Bananabrain woud be happy to answer them. I'll watch from afar.

Just kidding.

Seriously. What do you want to know?

[Aspasia Sariel]

Greetings everyone!

I was curious as to everyone's take on studying the Qabalah...I've been working from Kether to Malkuth as the Spheres overflow down the Tree. Does anyone (or is it more advisable) to study from the Root up to the Crown? Also, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of using such a system?

One more thing, if you don't mind this rambling post too much already <*G*>....

I've been reading the Qabalistic Tarot by Wang, and the Four World concept is a little overwhelming...what are everyone's thoughts on Atziluth, Briah, Yetzirah and Assiah?

As far as I have understood it, they are respectively the Archetypical World, the Creative World, the Formative World and the Active World....how does this really effect working with the Qablah?

Thank you very much and Blessings, Aspy

[bananabrain]

i'm not aware of any particular advantage in studying one way or the other, but a good rule is to 'start from where you are'. you, like the rest of us, are down here in malchut of malchut, in the world of assiyah and if you ask me you can't understand other stuff without first appreciating the starting point - the earth on which you stand.

in classical jewish kabbalah (which is where i'm coming from) these four worlds are less correspondent than actual. plus the (jungian) concept of archetypes is somewhat irrelevant, as All is One and One is All. ASIaH, the world of action, is where the physical universe and its laws function. YeTzIRaH, the world of formation, is one step removed - it is the world in which angels and other messengers of the Divine operate. as such it is removed from all who are not attuned to it. this is about as far as a human can detect. to understand BeRiAH, the world of creation, you must understand the difference between it and the world of yetzirah. the world of beriah is predicated on the word-root Bet-Resh-Alef, as in genesis 1:1, 'bereshit BaRA HaShem et ha-shamayim ve-et ha-aretz' - rendered roughly as 'in the beginning, G!D CREATED the heavens and the earth'. this concept denotes creation 'ex nihilo' - creation from components that did not already exist in some way/form. if the components already existed - eg creation of form from existing chemical laws, then you're only talking about permutations of precreated stuff - this is yetzirah. even the golem only functions at yetzirah. the only One who can create from nothing is by definition G!D, so it is only the Divine that functions at the level of beriah.

the world of atzilut is more logically deduced than detected - as i've already said, it's meaningless from my point of view to shoehorn it into a jungian concept of archetypes, so it is more properly rendered in english as the world of 'emanation'. the root Alef-Tzadi-Lamed, which is the basis of the word 'atzilut', connotes 'nearness' and 'home-ness', if that makes any sense. therefore insofar as we can comprenhend 'where' G!D 'exists', this is essentially 'next door' - as close as one can conceive that is not within the EIN-SOF AuOR, the Infinite Light.

scholem explains this very well in 'major trends', but the best practical explanation of this that i have encountered from my end is in rav adin steinsaltz's book 'the 13-petalled rose'. incidentally, although there is a lot of opinion on the precise correspondence between the four worlds and the Tree, there is not an authoritative opinion that i am aware of, although most people work on the basis that these 3 are in this world and so on.

hope this helps.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Aspasia Sariel]

Thank you very much, that was quite informative. You see, the reason I originally posed the question of starting one's study at Kether rather than Malkuth, is that in all the literature I have read on the subject, the authors have each started with an understanding of Kether, then continued down the Tree ending at our respective starting point. I also read that Malkuth contains all the other Spheres, so to understand Malkuth, one would have to have some knowledge (not total and complete mastery, but at the very least familiarity). Perhaps that is merely due to my resources being more Heremtic.

But then, how does one study an environment in which we are already a part of? If the laws of physics is ruling Assiah, does that mean that if one truly understands the rules and laws governing the physical world one has an understanding of Malkuth? Or is it more on a energetic level, the essences and the consequences of these laws that are to be studied for an understanding of Malkuth (and Assiah)?

I do have a rather privilaged background in physics, having studied it in college, and I'm curious if that (phyiscs) is the final state of emanation from the En Soph where the next step lies in Yesod...is that too, beyond the state of human comprehension?

Again, thank you for those titles, I will be sure to check them out. I appreciate your help and your explanation very much!

Blessings, Aspy

[bananabrain]

I also read that Malkuth contains all the other Spheres

yeah, but the others can also contain all the others. when we count the Omer (the 49-day period between passover and shavu'ot, or pentecost as some people call it) that period is understood as being analogous to a cycle of emanation from chesed of chesed down to malchut of malchut. if you like, the Divine Presence descends down upon mt sinai so we can renew our acceptance of the Torah, but it descends through this very tesselated, almost fractal structure.

i was reading this morning about the border between ma'aseh bereshit (the work of creation) and ma'aseh merkavah (the work of the 'chariot') and it appears that that border is the first sabbath, after 7 days of creation. apparently, the M.B. is in the world of beri'ah whilst the M.M. is in the world of assiyah - this too has implications, the M.B. being seven-fold. i am not sure how that maps onto the ToL system if at all.

re mastery, very few people have mastery even over malchut of malchut!


But then, how does one study an environment in which we are already a part of? If the laws of physics is ruling Assiah, does that mean that if one truly understands the rules and laws governing the physical world one has an understanding of Malkuth?

i would say rather that in order to comprehend levels beyond assiyah one must first have an understanding of it - the rambam (maimonides) held that a knowledge of both 'natural science and divine science' by which he means the laws of physics and metaphysics are BOTH *essential* for this. he was a doctor, incidentally, as well as a philosopher and jurist, so he was very well placed to understand. as a physicist, you are, as you say, uniquely well placed to understand this. you don't have to go very far to find plenty of physicists that *really* get into kabbalah. the late great rabbi aryeh kaplan z"l had a ph.d in nuclear physics and if he thought the two systems complemented each other perfectly, that's pretty damn authoritative in my book. i expect you'd understand his commentary on the sefer yetzirah far more than i would!


(physics) is the final state of emanation from the En Soph where the next step lies in Yesod...is that too, beyond the state of human comprehension?

i would say personally (although this is just MHO) that although the laws of physics certainly operate down here in assiyah, which nobody disputes, one could possibly make an argument that they are not all-embracing - that's the thing with science, you can disprove stuff perfectly well but 'proof' is merely an untarnished hypothesis, if you like. the laws of physics are, if you like, the physical interface by which we interact with the universe, but in the same way that we don't know 'everything', it is possible to make mistakes. on the other hand, if we discover a physical law for something, it is then included in 'the laws of physics', so there you go. the question is more whether one can use the laws of physics to address something that is outside their frame of reference - i myself don't see how. there are obviously a lot of people that would say that that is impossible, or bollocks, but if something don't show up on your instruments, you can't use those instruments to measure it - it doesn't mean the something doesn't exist.

clear as mud?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Aspasia Sariel]

he thought the two systems complemented each other perfectly, that's pretty damn authoritative in my book

I whole heartedly agree! Modern Physics is getting more and more mystical in nature with each new discovery. I've throughly enjoyed reading the Tao of Physics, an exploration of Eastern Mysticism and Philosophy and Modern Physics similarites, and they are astounding.

I also fully agree with the fact that science does not encompass all. I have seen many peers lose touch with anything that is not in terms of x and y. This saddens me, since I feel that both are necessary for understanding each other IMO. The Qabalah has been intergral for my development of Spirituality as my understanding of science is far dominant then that of my understanding of the ToL. This balance of the physical world and the "astral" or metaphysical seems to be a dominant theme. It is fascinating to me, and having your viewpoint has certainly opened my eyes better to the classical jewish stance. I deeply appreciate and throughly enjoy this coversation! Thank you!

Finally, I just wanted to make it very clear that I was by no means implicating that I've mastered anything...re-reading my words did kind of make it sound that way. I do apologize for my poor phrasing. Unfortunately self -study has its drawbacks, such as this. That's why this forum is valuable, for it gives a lot of wonderful perspective on the Tree. I'm simply a student, drawing from as many sources as I can so that I can understand this system I am so drawn to, and an excited one at that! Personally, i think this is as muddy as reading Hegel....

Blessings, Aspy

[bananabrain]

i don't mean to imply that science is in any way 'wrong', in the way that those illiterate idiot 'creationists' in the soi-disant 'bible belt' do. all i am saying is that the experimental paradigm of hypothesis-disproof has its limits and those limits are, it seems to me, those of the world of assiyah. once science finds out how something works, that doesn't mean it is only contained in assiyah.

about authority - of course what is authoritative for me may not be authoritative for you and vice versa. kaplan is authoritative for me because he is not only scientifically rigorous to the highest academic standards (and, moreover doesn't feel compelled to dumb things down) but he is also religiously authoritative because he is considered to be so by the entire jewish spectrum and has proved it in non-kabbalistic books about other aspects of jewish law. in other words, if you have something by a giant of Torah study like him to back you up, nobody can tell you it ain't kosher. of course, this isn't to say you (or i)'ll necessarily understand it! he has another level of authority for me, because although i did not know him personally, i have a good friend who was a good friend of his and my fiancée used to know his daughter. both of them confirmed that the entire family had *something* 'extra' about them, besides being frighteningly intelligent and learned. incidentally, in case you didn't know, he died young, at the age of forty, i think, at the beginning of the 80s. my friend said to me once that 'he was called back because he had revealed enough'. perhaps this is why some of the safeguards are there.

i've read the tao of physics myself and thought it was excellent. furthermore, all the physicists i know also consider it excellent, which gives it authority for me. there is a lot of commonality between kabbalah and the tao (check out the thread on the 'alef' for some of it)

finally, i'm not a 'master' of anything, either. i'm not a rabbi, although i do seem to know a lot of the buggers. i do think that i may be asking some of the right questions in the right way - but that's as far as i'll be patting myself on the back. i need to learn more humility as it is...

incidentally, are you saying that there's something in hegel that reminds you of kabbalah, or have i read that wrong? if so, what? i can easily check - my fiancée is a philosopher...

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Aspasia Sariel]

Ah the Hegel comment...when I was in school, taking my first philosophy course, my class was blessed to have a very wonderful teacher with incredible amounts of knowledge. I remeber when we were assigned to read some passages of Hegel and he referred to reading Hegel as "swimming through mud" but once the light penerated, it was a wealth of information. I remember reading the assingments over and over, trying to make sense of the words, and I feel that when one begins the study of the Qabalah, it too is like swimming through mud with an overwhelming amount of information to take in. But unlike Hegel, the prospects of the Qabalah are far more...

I do understand your point of the hypothetical nature of science, and just as some creationists are over zealous, so have I seen in some scientists, who forget that unless an experiement is done infinite times, the answers are still not TRUTH, but accepted truth. There's a fine balance. One to far in either direction losses out on the other perspective.

Its a shame to have lost a mind like that at such a young age. Your friend's statement was quite interesting, a light burning so brightly has returned closer to the Divine Unity, but I am sorry that he is not still with us.

[MistOfTheSea86]

Kabbalah has something to do with physics eh? Kinda contacting the spirit world or something like that?

[bananabrain]

no, the 'contacting the spirit world' is not a kabbalistic concept as far as i am aware. kabbalah is not 'something to do with physics' either. it has certain characteristics in common with physics, just as it has with the tao, but that does not mean that any of the three are the same. 'classical' jewish kabbalah could almost be called 'the jewish take on the mystical correspondences of the universe' - as such it is likely to bear certain resemblances because we are all observing the characteristics of the same Unity, even if our symbolic languages differ. this for me is one of the seventy faces of Torah...

aspy - swimming through mud? i like it! one might almost say, Divine Mudwrestling, hur hur hur. and yes, it is a shame kaplan is no longer with us, if only because he's so damn good at explaining stuff!

b'shalom

bananabrain