Kaballah


“It helps to have a god to meditate on, it doesn’t matter which one” – Mr. Patel

Here is a worldview not inconsistent with my understanding of how the mind works. Short answer, should work. Please note that my interest is only in how, not why. I view this as a neuron trellis to establish a connectedness with the universe (or God, same thing). Superficially this appears to be a perfectly valid philosophy to hang your thoughts on to achieve awareness or enlightenment. I took yoga (ganesh) as a method to control my blood pressure. Worked too, even though imploring a pink elephant to sprinkle petals of tranquility over me seemed rather silly. An occidental zen? Actually I think the word yoga, in and of itself is rather effete. “a real man doesn’t do yoga, he does zen” – el Loco Gringo

 

WTF? Where has it been? There is talk of secrecy as an enlightened person would have an an advantage over an idiot. I’m sure there’s some of that. And there is talk of danger in that the knowledge of Kabbalah was too powerful to to entrust to everyone. Plato felt the same way about the dudecohedron. There’s some of that. But I think the most important thing is the threat Kabbalah posed to entrenched power, the last thing a ruler wants are enlightened subjects. They’d kick his ass out, or impale him or burn him at the stake, whatever was in vogue for the zeitgeist of the era.Kabbalah teaches its students to question everything and to never be forced to make decisions. One of the most important teachings of Kabbalah is that there is no coercion in spirituality.

The Kabbalah Center empowers others to take responsibility for their own lives. That is the example set by the leaders of The Kabbalah Center. ‘It’s about the teachings, not the teachers.’

The Kabbalah Center makes no promises. If people are willing to work hard to become actively sharing, caring, and tolerant human beings, Kabbalah teaches that they will then experience fulfillment and joy in a way previously unknown to them. That sense of fulfillment, however, comes gradually and is always the result of the student’s spiritual work.

Is Kabbalah a Universal Wisdom?
Historically, Kabbalah has been a secret teaching studied by only a select few in each generation. There has always been much controversy surrounding the teaching of this wisdom, especially when kabbalists tried to open it up to people. Over the past few thousand years, kabbalists have been persecuted for daring to teach these secrets to the masses.

Proposed by the biblical Abraham 4000 years ago as the path to wisdom.
Question everything = dismantle the lattice
I wonder why it was restricted?

Yet another example of the anarchistic view of psychology. Deja vu all over again, or is it Vuja de? All of the knowledge to empower mankind’s full potential already exists, it’s just in different baskets.
http://www.kabbalah.com/01.php

While there is much wisdom in kabbalah it is wrapped up in mysticism like other techniques

 

If you have a “hole in the soul” typical of this civilization you might want to check this out. There’s a good beginners thread at contoveros. And a couple of links to get you started. Also note that my graphics were chosen for color compatibility, not accuracy, except for the burning hand, turquoise flames don’t really look right. Maybe I could say “As part if the initiation ritual you dip your hand in boiling sulphur and set it on fire”. Nah! that might be a deal stopper for some people, and it looks like it’s worthwhile. I welome any corrections. There’s a pretty good beginners thread here> Contoveros

“To begin with you just have to learn the terminology used. It gives one such insight into Christianity itself. Take the word Amen for example. Most people know that it basically means “So be it.” It is also an alternative name for Keter. Amen is composed of three letters: Aleph-Mem-Nun. Aleph is the Fiery Intelligence, Radiant Holy Breath or Holy Spirit, and is said to represent Keter. Mem is water or the substance of consciousness/creation from which all things are formed, and is said to represent Hokmah. Nun is the energy-intelligence of the zodiacal sign of Scorpio, which is an occult or hidden power of fire drawn from within water, and is said to represent Binah. Thus, the word amen bears the full power of the Supernals: Keter-Hokmah-Binah, or more properly Hokmah-Binah-Da’at. It is akin to the mantric word Om in the Eastern Traditions, though in its intonement a distinction is made between the upper and lower worlds, or the World of Supernal Light and matrix of creation.Coupled with creative visualization the chant of amen is said to be a great manifesting power. Just try intoning it with full understanding of what it represents. You begin the with the Aa high and the nnn low.”

Sephiroth Being a study into, and graphical, isometrical, structural, physical and topological interpretation of the ancient Sefer Yetzirah (also called the Book of Formation or Creation) and the Sephirotic Tree of Life, with regard to the geometry of the circle, the equilateral triangle, the seed of life, the hexagon, isometric projection and the double cube.

SasphianCircle Tree of Life Kabbalah Learning Perceiving reality SasphianCircle






Advertisements

2 Responses to “Kaballah”

  1. walt,

    in some models of the gods, ‘intelligence’ was the middle of three realms, which makes sense to me (in the sense of explaining the variants in social behaviours), and perhaps it is implicit in the kaballah as well. this is the problem that i keep bumping into (that keeps bumping into me) with the ‘cognitive model’ of the psyche, … it seems to cover only the two lower levels and to try to reconcile them in a cognitive fashion.

    we could associate gods with (a) intrinsic shaping of the unfolding universe, (b) extrinsic shaping of the unfolding universe, and (c) extrinsic/intrinsic unfolding; e.g. (a) the hurricane self-organizes, (b) the atmosphere sucks the hurricane into being, (c) there is just one unfolding continuum and (a) and (b) are simply two ways of thinking about the ‘sourcing agency’

    note that in (a) and (b) we have two things, (1.) ‘the unfolding world’ and (2.) the sourcing/shaping agency, whereas there is only one in (c) the sourcing/shaping agency is immanent in the world.

    now, for our ‘sense of self’ we can use the hurricane model (why not?, it is a familiar example which reconciles intrinsic, extrinsic and energy-flow aspects);

    if my visual appearance corresponds to the local cell (the hurricane) i can think of myself as the local, independently-existing material system that is equipped with its own locally originating, purpose-directed behaviour.. this is the common western view of self.

    however, if i understand my higher self as being ‘of the flow’ then my ‘local self’ is merely the ‘shadow on the wall’ of my higher self; i.e. ‘i am that aspect of the flow that associates with a particular ‘shadow-on-the-wall’ cell.

    what remains is the ‘still higher’ realm wherein i don’t have to account for these two aspects of the self (the intrinsic and extrinsic sourcing/shaping aspects) and i can consider myself as an ‘immanence’ in the flow.

    we can find all of these three views of the self in the modern world. they crop up in biology for example where, to one biologist, an organism is a local system intrinsically sourced by a long line of ancestral systems, … and to another biologist, the individual organism is extrinsically sourced by the niche-need to fill a hole in the ‘overall’ (‘whole’) ecosystem complex, call it Gaia or whatever. only amongst a rare minority of biologists do we get those like douglas caldwell whose experimental findings support what caldwell calls ‘bidirectional innovation’ (extrinsic/intrinsic innovation).

    examples abound. in the ‘environmentally conscious’ island community i live in, there are those that come to the island with the building plans for their dreamhouse, they are the intrinsic movers and shakers and they do not stop to think that when they order the lumber to construct their home, they are effectively commanding the chopping down of trees (for the milling of the lumber) so that their intrinsic shaping by way of the purposive construction of the house, at the same time, associates with extrinsic shaping influence; e.g. with most of the trees gone (except for the token big ones) the houses are unprotected from gale-force winds so that they have to move to safer places when the big winter storms come; i.e. their behaviour is extrinsically shaped. that is ‘type 1’, then there is ‘type 2’ who would like to live in harmony with their plant and animal brothers and this shows in the construction of their homes (how it fits harmoniously into the habitat). type 3 is once again rare, but is found in the amerindian traditionalists who believe that the raven on that branch could be ‘uncle running-bear’; i.e. who believe that ‘space’ is made of the spirits of our ancestors which manifest in many different forms.

    the cognitive engine in us has both level 1 and level 2 capabilities (it is like a ‘dual processor’) and this would seem to be constrained to the realm of ‘intelligence’ which depends upon ‘time’; e.g. innate in the notion of a ‘processor’ or ‘cognitive engine’ is the notion of ‘time’. a ‘processor’ makes something out of ‘something else’ (it has both input and output and ‘input’ precedes ‘output’ in ‘time’).

    there is no dependency on ‘time’ in the third level where one is ‘one with the unfolding continuum’, therefore, there is no cognitive process to ‘get you there’, … one has to ‘leave cognitive processes behind’ [leave levels one and two behind] in order to get in touch with one’s level three inclusion.

    but levels one and two have their own ‘gods’ and thus it is necessary to ‘leave those gods behind’ as well; i.e. the gods we make in our (man’s) own image depending on whether we see ourselves as ‘level one’ intrinsic shapers or as children of Gaia, the extrinsic shaper (part of a ‘whole’ that is greater than us). the references to amerindians as ‘in dios’ suggests that like the neo-platonists, they saw nature as god and themselves as included in god.

    whenever we get to level three (perhaps we get there many times every day), we kill off the gods of level and two which we hold to be separate from us and superior to us. it would be blasphemous for us NOT to acknowledge our ‘inferiority’ relative to the gods of level one and two. however, in level three, where we are ‘one with all’ (one with God), the concept of a god that ‘we can try to get in touch with’ no longer makes any sense. when we go into this mode, god is no longer part of the scene (no longer part of what is ‘seen’)

    the kabbalah presumably has ‘all these choices’, but then we find it elsewhere as well, such as in pythagorus;

    “Pythagoras taught that everything in nature was divisible into three parts and that no one could become truly wise who did not view every problem as being diagrammatically triangular. He said, “Establish the triangle and the problem is two-thirds solved”; further, “All things consist of three.” In conformity with this viewpoint, Pythagoras divided the universe into three parts, which he called the Supreme World, the Superior World, and the Inferior World. The highest, or Supreme World, was a subtle, interpenetrative spiritual essence pervading all things and therefore the true plane of the Supreme Deity itself, the Deity being in every sense omnipresent, omniactive, omnipotent, and omniscient. Both of the lower worlds existed within the nature of this supreme sphere.

    The Superior World was the home of the immortals. It was also the dwelling place of the archetypes, or the seals; their natures in no manner partook of the material of earthiness, but they, casting their shadows upon the deep (the Inferior World), were cognizable only through their shadows. The third, or Inferior World, was the home of those creatures who partook of material substance or were engaged in labor with or upon material substance. Hence, this sphere was the home of the mortal gods, the Demiurgi, the angels who labor with men; also the dæmons who partake of the nature of the earth; and finally mankind and the lower kingdoms, those temporarily of the earth but capable of rising above that sphere by reason and philosophy.

    The digits 1 and 2 are not considered numbers by the Pythagoreans, because they typify the two supermundane spheres. The Pythagorean numbers, therefore, begin with 3, the triangle, and 4, the square. These added to the 1 and the 2, produce the 10, the great number of all things, the archetype of the universe. The three worlds were called receptacles. The first was the receptacle of principles, the second was the receptacle of intelligences, and the third, or lowest, was the receptacle of quantities.
    “The symmetrical solids were regarded by Pythagoras, and by the Greek thinkers after him, as of the greatest importance. To be perfectly symmetrical or regular, a solid must have an equal number of faces meeting at each of its angles, and these faces must be equal regular polygons, i. e., figures whose sides and angles are all equal. Pythagoras, perhaps, may be credited with the great discovery that there are only five such solids.”

    so, … my conclusion is that the western culture has become the culture of ‘intelligence’ (levels one and two) where our time-based cognitive dual processors are worshipped and deified (god becomes the ‘all-knowing’). in order to get in touch with level three, we must ‘let go’ of our worship of ‘intelligence’. for example, we do not have to ‘know’ to ‘love’. we can let love orchestrate our behaviour without having to ‘know’ why we are doing what we are doing. like the wildgeese who lets resonance orchestrate their individual and collective behaviour. darwin’s theory, of course, operates on a level one basis where the organisms, intrinsically source/shape the next model of themselves, by gene-mixing and random variations, like the people building new homes on the island, unaware of how their constructions are, at the same time, transforming the space they are included in which is, at the same time, exerting extrinsic shaping influence on them. darwinists may not be concerned with the inherent co-relationship of intrinsice and extrinsic shaping influence, but nature certainly is.

    though we of the ‘western civilization’ pride ourselves on our ‘superior intelligence’, we know that we have lost something when we watch ‘the primitive peoples’, as mary oliver says, spontaneously love what the soft animal of their body wants to love, while we await plug in the data and wait for the time-delayed recommendation of our dual cognitive processor.

    ted

  2. ellocogringo Says:

    Hi Mr Ted
    Good, you desquishified that intrinsic/extrinsic thing. we agree. you’re fast. i would say we’re mostly a sometimes b and rarely are aware of c. (God, the big hoochie koochie, cosmic standing wave, whatever) You speak of type a people bringing their bullshit with them into a type b environment. The thing they’re trying to get away from, they’ve brought with them. The “hole in the soul”. Anomie. It is the awareness of c that they seek, and try to achieve with type a methods. Now I can correct my “herding cats” post.

    walt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: