Aug 04, 1996 07:53 PM
by Frank J. Dyer
>To finish the model, Ye sod & Malthus would compose the 'Sarina'. In the
>model referred to from the book of Trees, Ye sod and Malthus are again
>combined as a single circle with two dots. This would simply show the >close
>embrace between the emeric double and the Physical body.
Using Bailey terminology, could the following be accurate:
>- Plane - Shifrah
>Adi = Kezer (Crown)
>Monadic = Chainman (Wisdom)
>At mic = Binah (understanding)
Budd hic = Ches ed-Guevara-Teferi (Love-Strength-Beauty)
>Mental = Hod (Splendor) [& Elo heim Tzevaot]
>Astral = Net zach [& Ado nay Tzevaot]
>Physical = Ye sod-Malthus [& El Shanda - Ado nay]
>The prior posts on reincarnation (or embodiment) would be good sources >of
>doctoring to discuss in conjunction with the above. This should provide
>enough material for you to work from "Should you choose to accept this
>assignment ;)" I hope that Fellows not fluent in Kabalas could bear >with
>this, as this should exercise our use of "Freedom of thought". Besides,
>this is an attempt to "Get Real", as Alan suggested. Starting with no >past
>ideas about your viewpoints (so that you aren't "Bemused"), please show >us
>how a 40+ year veteran of kabbalistic thought would explain the concepts.
With all due respect,
The Kabbalah is a highly esoteric collection of doctrines and *orally
transmitted* tradition entrusted to a group of adepts reincarnated within the
Jewish community of Europe and Asia Minor. A number of non Jewish seekers,
notably Picco Della Miran dola, Johannes Reaching, and Knorring Ivon Rosen roth,
attempted to translate/adapt the Kabbalah for the wider community of seekers.
This has resulted, IMHO, in an undue emphasis on the Etz Chaim, a glyph
popularly attributed to the archangel Metatron. This emphasis is *misplaced*.
For the real essence of Kabbalah, one should look to sources such as Rabbi Chaim
Vital, Rabbi Yatzeck Luria (the Ari), and Rabbi Moses Cordovero. Rabbi Moses
Chaim Luzzatto should be studied thoroughly.
There is no such thing (in any real tradition that I am aware of) as the
Book of Trees. This sounds like a pseudo-exegesis of something that the author
had no real knowledge of.
FWIW, I think that HPB missed a good deal in her explanations of this
subject. She attacks Eliphas Levi, who was a Christian Abbot. She does not
demonstrate a familiarity with *genuine* Jewish sources, which is not
surprising, as that community had been subject to severe repression during the
period of HPB's incarnation.
The genuine Kabbalistic tradition has recently been brought to the
attention of the scholarly community through the works of Scholem and Matt.
Anything else is derivative or speculative, IMHO. I repeat, there is no Book of
Trees (in any Jewish Kabbalistic tradition).
The study of the above *genuine* sources will be repaid handsomely.
[Back to Top]
- Re: Kabbalah
- From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application