Aeclectic Tarot Forum

Aeclectic Tarot Forum (http://www.tarotforum.net/index.php)
-   Thoth Tarot (http://www.tarotforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Liber Theta (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=156882)

brightcrazystar
05-05-2011 14:26
Yes, in Chapter 5, abundantly clear in every one of the Five versions.

I am not going to, and never will support the idea that the glyph in that verse is a "Tzadi". The *glyph* no more looks like a Tzadi in Liber XXXI than an "X" does, and has less to do with it.

Tzadi is "hunt" not "fishhook." It is the process of staying perfectly still and waiting for prey.

The phrase "not the Star" is important for me. It's multiplicity is part of the evidence of its transpersonal nature, to me.

This phrase is La H-Tzava or La H-Kokav. It's value is 135 or 88.

135 is the value of several words, 25 entries in Strongs Biblical Hebrew Concordance. Also the following, highlighted in a privately updated version of 777

A denounced woman - ONIH (Scarlet Woman)
“Gathering” - QHL (The Fold of Nuit)
To make easy for one; assist or support - QLH (All the times mentioned in the BOL)

88 is the value of 5 words from Strongs Biblical Hebrew Concordance. Also the following from a updated 777

Redness; sparkling - ChKLL (The Fiery RED of Martial Current. Red Triangle)
To be hot - HMM (Burning and swooning, baby)
Darkness - ChSK (Nuit again; and NOX)
Roaring, seething; burning - NChL (The very nature of a star)
Pure, innocent - ChP (yeah right - how about bare and rejoicing)
Snare, danger - PCh (the hunt is all about the ambush)

ALL of this is sufficient to carry forth the attributions of Tzadi to Aries, and furthermore The Star as found in the Rider Waite and the Thoth Deck.

Some magical loop in the sky is a stupid reason to change such an elegant attribution. Rather a Magician should be able to hold two contending ideas in his head and employ both, as per the ATBSh. As for the Golden Dawn, their transposition makes sense in that it reconciles a math problem in the ATBSh which Rabbi have notices for centuries. It also makes FAR more sense.

Aeon418
05-05-2011 19:01
[QUOTE=LRichard]To make things even easier, why not just ignore the Sepher Yetzirah altogether?[/QUOTE]The same argument could be directed at the Kabbalists who concocted the Gra version of Sepher Yetzirah. They [u]silently[/u] changed some attributions to suit their own purposes and bring the text into conformity with the Zohar. The only difference between that and what Jim Eshelman has done in his own translation is that Jim has openly pointed out the changes he made.

brightcrazystar
05-05-2011 20:35
Well, the Gra was changed to match the Zohar, with a peculiar cross-association between Saturn and Venus and Jupiter and Mercury.

The Golden Dawn cipher manuscript gave its attributes, not the Sepher Yetzirah. As it was not yet translated into English, it is possible that the persons who wrote the Ciphers were not as well versed in the Hebrew as the Westcott, Woodrow, and Mathers. The book is not mentioned in the Neophyte cipher, but was added to it in the lecture of the Neophyte. In his translation, Westcott gives his reason for changing the ones he does - "clairvoyant investigation."

Aeon418
05-05-2011 22:37
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]Well, the Gra was changed to match the Zohar, with a peculiar cross-association between Saturn and Venus and Jupiter and Mercury.[/quote]But the main point is that changes [i]were[/i] made and a precedent established. The latter day Kabbalists certainly didn't let "tradition" stand in their way. They just got on with it, in spite of the fact that they were altering what is considered to be their own tradition. And yet in the non-Hebraic world this same "tradition" is routinely dusted off and wheeled out as an objection to anyone who does the same. The following is a typical example.
[quote=RLG]Eshelman hangs a lot on the thin evidence of a line from the Zohar about Tzaddi; he even goes so far as to change his translation of the Sefer Yetzirah to attribute Tzaddi to Aries, which is completely his own interpretation, and not part of tradition at all.[/quote]Heaven forbid that anyone should try to break with tradition. After all, tradition is old and therefore authentic. :rolleyes:

brightcrazystar
06-05-2011 06:18
[QUOTE=Aeon418]But the main point is that changes [i]were[/i] made and a precedent established. The latter day Kabbalists certainly didn't let "tradition" stand in their way. They just got on with it, in spite of the fact that they were altering what is considered to be their own tradition. And yet in the non-Hebraic world this same "tradition" is routinely dusted off and wheeled out as an objection to anyone who does the same. The following is a typical example.
Heaven forbid that anyone should try to break with tradition. After all, tradition is old and therefore authentic. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

While I do agree in some ways:
Here is the difference - the latter day Qabalists DID speak fluent Hebrew, most on a daily basis, regardless of what country they were in.

No one set is clear, and this is because all of them are as young as this side of the Moabite dedaction of the Semitic Script, but the conversational language of the Biblical Hebrews is born of the Proto-Biblical Hebrew that they have a much firmer grasp of. The problem with "innovation" is so much of it in the 13-15th centuries was done by people who simply did not know Hebrew. Even moreso was done later in the 19-20th centuries, and especially after the establishment of post-modernism as part of the default human condition.

As for the "Gra" version, the Gra is a man, Vilna Gaon, and was a foremost leader of Qabalistic thought. He committed the Tanakh to memory before his fifth birthday, and got the entire Talmud committed to memory in time for his Bar Mitzvah! This was a man of the 18th Century who was perhaps one of the most knolwedgeable, non-rabbinical Jews of his time, or any other. He was not just making changes he felt like.

Also, NO version of the Sepher Yetzirah (Short, Long, Saaida, Gra, Gra-Ari) makes any changes to the Letters of the 12 Elementals, or Single Letters. The Changes are almost exclusively to the Double Letters and the Planets, none of which are fixed in Hebrew studies. This is searching for the unestablished.

The reason Jim Eshelman makes the change is simple. I give respect to him where due, and am not trying to insult him, just calling attention to something that is clearly a fact. He is a Thelemite, and like many is biased toward the letter being a Tzadi. He is fairly dogmatic in his Thelemic mindset towards the works of Crowley. In fact, he comes from a time when most the copies of the Book of the Law did not include and could not include the original handwriting in facsimile manuscript. He does not work from a basis of noticing something of his own. He is looking to validate Crowley's attribution, period. He starts from a bias of supporting Crowley and that is fine, but when he begins to venture into the world of it was FINALLY revealed as the truly correct essential truth, well then - I simply, respectfully, do not agree. The Glyph is unlike any Tzadi I have seen anywhere else. Crowley RESIGNED to make it Tzaddi and it was not a immediate change. The problem is it says "all of these letters" BUT one... if it were a transposing, it should logically say "all but these two are aright, Heh and Tzaddi." A simple switch is not the solution, or TWO would not be aright.

Still, I have not found a way to reconcile one completely, and at the sake of all others. All have some value. Here is another to consider:

If anything I would say it looks like anything like a letter in total other than a CRUDE Proto-Hebrew He, that I would say it looks like a Moabite Bet and a Hebrew Beth superimposed. Beth is given an attribution in Hebrew of Mercury, or Kokabh, (koh-kahv) which is the hebrew word for "Star." What is to say this is not a call to reassign Beth to the Moon? Gimel, which is from the Root Gam is to "walk toward water", a reference to the movement from oasis to oasis - where Mercury is elementally Water in the G.D. and A.'.A.'. and - furthermore this movement from station to station is similar to the Kerux in the G.D. temple.

This also attributes Mercury BACK to the Middle Pillar, and The Moon to the Influx of Unity to Understanding leading from Kether to Binah. Thus Aleph, Beth and Gimel all become the three fold word of Thoth coming from the Mouth of Ra. It also further demonstrated the influx of Water down the Severe Pillar by path and Sephiroth..., Kether, Moon, Sphere of Saturn/Shin, Chariot, Sphere of Mars, Hanged Man, Sphere of Mercury, taker of fire, and then Shin the Fiery Judgement (which is Shin pouring into the Malkuth) This is the process by which the Waters of life become the Fire of Creation and Judgement.

To me, that glyph is the mark on the Magus card right on the staff on the Table. It also reconciles to my belief that the work of the Aeon was revealed by two sources, the RWS deck and the BoL - something working through several Agents.

As for the attributes, this could make, with meanings suitable to biblical hebrew studies, not simple word for word like GD learn:

Bet - "Household, Family", Moon
Gam - "Walk to water", (nomadic passage from Oasis to Oasis) - Mercury
Dal - "Give Way, Announce" - Venus
Kaph - "Palm, Tame, Appease" - Jupiter
Peh - "Scatter, Blow, Disrupt" - Mars
Resh - "Top, Summit, Head, Prime" - Sol
Tau - "Monument, Sign, Milestone, Marker" - Saturn

This makes TOTAL sense from an etymological standpoint.

Bet is the basis of family, guided by the lunar cycle of woman*
Gam is the basis of tribe, guided by their herds and star observations
Dal is the giving way of Dark to Light, the morning star
Kaph is ability to guide direct and pass tradition and discipline
Peh is the ability to enforce one's right to move the heard and protect
Resh is the Elder Chief, the highest light, and the highest
Tau is the markers to follow, the dots to connect as you sojurn.

This order is Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Saturn

This order is very close to the maximum brightness, or average apparent magnitude of each - accounting only for the facts that Venus is brighter than mercury quite often, and saturn is at the endf... though mercury can still be easier to locate to this day - so that could have something to do with it. The order could actually be older than the discovery of saturn by ancients.

They, with this letter switch, then break down into the following soundshape families:
B P = Lips = Moon and Mars
G K = Glottal = Mercury and Jupiter
D T = Tongue = Venus and Saturn
R = Mouth = Sol

The change yields one thing of immediate note:
This is exactly the way the Days of the week are ordered, as opposed to the attributes given in the Sehper Yetzirah, which are no way similar to our own, and thus even the names of the days we use. No other system has such a symbolic importance in modern terms immediately apparent. Reconciling this has been the reason most variation in the Sepher Yetzirah attributions exists.

Sepher Yetzirah, Short Version, for comparison.

B - Saturn - Sunday
G - Jupiter - Monday
D - Mars - Tuesday
K - Sun - Wednesday
P - Venus - Thursday
R - Mercury - Friday
T - Moon - Sabbath

Sepher Yetzirah, Gra Version, for comparison

B - Moon - Sunday
G - Mars - Monday
D- Sun - Tuesday
K - Venus - Wednesday
P - Mercury - Thursday
R - Saturn - Friday
T - Jupiter - Saturday

Neither of these reconcile to the Cube of Space as well as our own days of the Week. None of these reconcile to the books and libraries of Western Magick as well as the switch I make. Also, I have the added benefit that the switch I make also supports a good bit of Dee's work - which figures highly into my own work, and the entire Western Magick Tradition, Golden Dawn or Thelemic.

Is my switch any more right that Crowley's, or the Gra's? I do not know - but it is both practical and functional - and reconciles to every magickal system I employ with Hebrew.

Again, this is all conjecture, but equally as reasonable as any other established and more in line with proto-biblical Hebrew lingusitics.

RLG
06-05-2011 13:59
[QUOTE=Aeon418]But the main point is that changes [i]were[/i] made and a precedent established. The latter day Kabbalists certainly didn't let "tradition" stand in their way. They just got on with it, in spite of the fact that they were altering what is considered to be their own tradition. And yet in the non-Hebraic world this same "tradition" is routinely dusted off and wheeled out as an objection to anyone who does the same. The following is a typical example.
Heaven forbid that anyone should try to break with tradition. After all, tradition is old and therefore authentic. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


Dwtw

I'd appreciate if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I didn't say one should leave tradition alone for it's own sake. Being old doesn't make anything authentic automatically. But to change it to suit your own purposes, WHILE LEAVING THE REST OF IT INTACT is just playing games to satisfy an agenda.
As another commentator said, at that point you may as well ignore the SY altogether. If the GRA version does that also, then caveat emptor.

IOW, you can't just change a line or two of the SY and then say, 'what a wonderful system; I've made it prefect with my little changes'. Should we be changing a few lines of Genesis to suit ourselves also?

The idea is not that old = authentic; the idea is that the SY is an intact document that lays out a system. if one doesn't like it, they can make up their own, (as the GD did with the planetary letters) but deliberately mistranslating a single part of it to satisfy a questionable line in Liber AL doesn't seem kosher. pun intended. And IIRC, JE doesn't make it explicit at the beginning of his SY that he has changed a part of it to suit his own doctrinal interpretation.

I'm all for creating your own set of associations; I abandoned the misguided GD ones a long time ago. Yet the ones I use do not pretend to be sort-of based on the SY in the parts that suit me. but then, i don't believe the Tarot was designed by qabalists in the first place, and the coincidence of 22 letters doesn't line up nearly as well as people would like them to, (Cancer = the Chariot?) aside from the fact that it is often done by those who don't understand a word of Hebrew and are simply being cultural imperialists who like to modify others' symbol systems for their own purposes.

That doesn't mean one shouldn't incorporate Hebrew into their tarot, if that floats their boat. Let a thousand systems flourish, if that be the will of those who work with the Tarot.

Litlluw

RLG
06-05-2011 14:12
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]No, you get the point all wrong. In fact most of the Tarot world does. The argument is not that Tarot was made by Qabalists or that Tarot Readers lean on Qabala for interpretation. The argument is that Qabalists, since at least the 16th century have used Tarot and it was a replacement for things they used before it, and precursor to things used afterwards. [/QUOTE]

Then you misunderstood my point, since i basically agree with you. people have used the tarot for all kinds of purposes since its inception. But there is no evidence that the Tarot was originally designed with the qabalah in mind. if qabalists later used it, which they probably did at some point before Gebelin, it would be no different than making a gummy bear or alice in wonderland deck; and I'm pretty sure the creator of tarot did not have bears and mad hatters in mind when drawing the triumphs and making a game out of them.

RLG
06-05-2011 14:20
Dwtw

The main evidence that the glyph in AL 1;57 is a Tzaddi is that AC translated it that way in the typescript redaction, couple with the fact that the Tarot, as he understood it in 1904, attributed the letter Tzaddi to the Star card. And since there is no argument that The Star is mentioned in the verse, the glyph can only be a tzaddi. it is truly a poorly drawn letter, actually being one letter drawn over another. to me it looks a lot like an ayin (which closely resembles a tzaddi) accidentally drawn, and then drawn over as much as possible to look like a tzaddi. Whatever it was, it was done in haste, and very poorly, but AC never wavered in saying that he felt it was a tzaddi, and so we must accept that that is the word he 'heard' during the dictation, and just wasn't able to draw it very well.
The alternative is that whatever letter it 'really' is, is being touted as the new letter-attribute of the Star card, whose name is officially 'Not the Star'. (e.g. all these old letters of my Book are aright, but [actually] ayin is not the Star)... but it stretches credulity to make such an interpretation. And it would still require two letters to be switched, so it does not make things any simpler.
Ah well, writing sober isn't much fun. I'll stop ranting now.

Litlluw

brightcrazystar
06-05-2011 14:59
[QUOTE=RLG]Then you misunderstood my point, since i basically agree with you. people have used the tarot for all kinds of purposes since its inception. But there is no evidence that the Tarot was originally designed with the qabalah in mind. if qabalists later used it, which they probably did at some point before Gebelin, it would be no different than making a gummy bear or alice in wonderland deck; and I'm pretty sure the creator of tarot did not have bears and mad hatters in mind when drawing the triumphs and making a game out of them.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

I think there is a strong case for Christian Virtues and Neoplatonism to be synergized in Tarot, if not its precursors. This was contemporary to the works of Qabalists of the time, and thus it is easy to imagine that Tarot WAS based on this common influence of Neoplatonic approaches to reconciling Christianity with Judiasm, even if it was not known or popularized at the time.

As for Letter attributions, not every aspect of Tarot is suitable to that. If fact there is three traditional forms of letter use; Temurah, Notariqon, and Gematria. The rebus style play used now is not even traditional at all. The Sepher Shaar Aur is a GREAT book to use in connection to studying Tarot and it does not employ a letter attribution style of values such as the Sepher Yetzirah.

As for the Sepher Yetzirah; Westcott does not alter these. The source text for the attributes of the Hebrew letters is the Cipher documents, not the Sepher Yetzirah. They do not mention the games of alchemical ghana yoga that the modern Qabalist plays with these, though such games were a subject of the work of Isaac Luria, where all things can be cooresponded to a celestial and alchemical value, or interplay or values. It is likely Luria was a HUGE influence on the Golden Dawn Cipher Manuscripts, and his work shines in the pages of Eliphas Levi quite bright.

Richard
06-05-2011 15:20
1 Attachment(s)
What is it?


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 05:41.