Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tl00246)

Dear King Lemming [joke]:

In message <346CF666.5373@dmv.com>, Vincent Beall <vincent@dmv.com>
writes
>If we ignore the names of the traditional parts of the soul: Yechidah,
>Chayah, Neshamah, Ruach, Nefesh... simply agree that the soul has five
>parts, and look for those parts in the commandment to love G-d where He
>is to be loved with all heart, soul, mind, strength (adding to this the
>senses) the I see a refection of the masculine sephirot.

The very essence of Kabbalah is that it is a recevied tradition. If, in
other words, we ignore the names (and the significance thereof) of the
parts of the soul (in which I would not include Yechidah) then we are
not re-interpreting anything, but deriving a new hypothesis upon the
foundation of an existing one.  Nothing wrong in doing this, but the
result cannot be called Kaballah, even though the inspiration for it
comes from the same.
>
>Tipareth-beauty= Heart
>
>Chesed-mercy/love= (spiritual)soul
>
>Chokmah-wisdom= mind
>
>Netzach-victory= strength
>
>Kether-crown= (supernatural)senses
>
This does not work within Kabbalist inerpretation. Geburah is strength,
not Netzach; and a crown (Kether) is *above* the head, and hence outside
of the physical.

Kabbalah defines "soul" as nephesh, and with sound reasoning, although
it is a limited definition relating to the animal (mammalian) body, and
a later use of "soul" equates more closely with the Jungian concept of
Self, and would include the sephiroth from 'Hesed to Yesod (contained
withing Malkuth, *on the scale of the human being*).  There are other
scales, such as the planetary or cosmic, and again the sub-atomic, etc.,
etc.

One the planetary scale of Earth, for example, the human race has access
only to Malkuth, Yesod, Hod, and the lower half of (the Earth's)
Netzach.  Beyond that we cannot see (not in this life, anyhow).

>I think this is a major reinterpretation , but a coherent one which also
>reflects a natural geometry (which is unfortunately difficult to
>illustrate). 
>
>Please give me some thoughts about how well such an interpretaion might
>be tolerated. I may be the king lemming on this, but everyone need not
>go off the cliff with me.

My thoughts are that you may have found a useful analogy derived from
Kabbalistic considerations, but that the analogy is not itself something
that can be defined as "Kabbalah."

Alan