The 'Kircher' Tree

this is the version of the Tree of Life that is usually referred to when discussing the Hermetic Qabalah, the one that has the Moon and Judgement paths connecting Malkuth to Netzach and Hod, respectively.

this Tree makes no sense, and i dislike it alot.
so why is it the most commonly used version?
discuss...

You certainly bring up a few important issues...

With regards to why it is used and re-used, I suppose that, at one level, it is the version which was adopted by certain influential people and esoteric initiatic groups, and that hence it will continue to be worked, meditated on, and written about in years to come.

Does the pattern on that particular version of the Tree make sense? Personally, I tend to think it does - very much so, even though I do not consider it as one which should be adopted.

It makes sense because it follows a very straightforward pattern. Emerging from the higher sefirot downwards, each of the 'paths' (with some significant and 'sensible' exceptions) are allocated the Major Arcana in sequence (after altering the sequence by placing the Fool as zero, and interchanging the Justice and Strength cards).

Of course, other patterns make as much or more sense, depending on how one is working Kabalistically. For example, the Tree pattern favoured by A. Kaplan (which of course makes no mention of the Tarot) also has 22 paths with Hebrew letter association. Some depictions of the Tree of life, including some important early ones, have not 22 but only 16 'paths' (which together with the ten Sefirot adds to 26, the value of YHVH).

The continental tradition, following Wirth, has the first ten cards of the Major Arcana (beginning, of course, with the Magician as the first card) directly upon the Sefirot, in their order of emanation.

But, again, the Kircher pattern does, in my opinion, make sense.

For the Tarot, two questions of central importance arise when considering the Tree of Life. The first is whether there is a Hebrew letter association/correlation to be made. The second, whether or not the answer to the first is in the affirmative, is how the Major (and maybe minor) Arcana are to be placed upon the Tree, and which version of the Tree best makes sense.

These, I would suggest, need to be answered by studying each of the Kabalah and the Tarot independently of each other.

In my opinion, this is what Mathers, Wescott, Waite and many others did, and in great detail given the limitations of available materials at the time. I am always both amazed and highly respectful of the incredible work they did. With such background work, to dismiss the Kircher Tree needs to be made with insight - as I'm sure Alobar is here making. Insight which suggests that, despite the work others before have undertaken, there appears something fundamentally mistaken about the particular pattern of the Tree adopted from the various other possibilities which seem to have 'better' roots in tradition.

This could certainly develop to be a very interesting thread, especially if comments are forthcoming to the defense of the Kircher Tree...

I guess I am just wondering if it is the Kircher tree as such that makes no sense or the way some authors associate the paths of the Kircher tree with the tarot cards?

I am still reading Scholems book where he mentions the Kircher tree and I really can't come with much of well thought through ideas of my own here.

I am still trying to figure out if I think that the cards should go on the paths or in the sephiroth themselves.

regardless of the various interpretations (which will always occur), there are other models which i feel represent the Tree much more logically. the 16th century A'ri model in particular.

the problem i have with Kircher's model is at least two-fold.
1) it doesn't provide a logical path for the light of Ain to descend into all the sephira. the A'ri Tree does.

2) if you consider the initiates ascent, then i don't like the diagonal paths i mentioned above.
i don't think there should be any shortcuts to Hod or Netzach that bypass Yesod.
to me, the first step in any path to enlightenment is the conscious decision to embark on the journey. this immediately places the seeker in Yesod, which is not called Foundation for nothing! from this point, the seeker can ascend up into the Tree to explore the various aspects of the sephira.

now then, if we prune those two paths from the bottom of the Tree, they must be grafted on somewhere else.
the most logical place is across the void between the Supernal and Ethical triangles (Chokmah to Geburah and Binah to Chesed). and in doing this we provide a natural (and necessary) path for the light to descend.
and the model we have just created is the A'ri Tree, a sort of one-legged affair which (i think) makes much more sense than Kircher's 17th century version.

a little bit more....

alobar--

some other things to consider about the a'ri tree...

the path from keter to tiphirah and the two added paths you mention cross at the da'ath.... this leads to a re-definition of the da'ath.

Da'ath has been called 'the hidden sephirah' or some such. This has always bothered me, as in the sepher yetzrah it is explicitly said: 'ten and not nine, ten and not eleven'

By adding the two upper paths, the location of the da'ath becomes a point-- a crossroad. And a crossroad of the three longest paths in the a'ri tree-- three paths emerging from the three supernals. Pretty high energy place I would think.

I also like the concept that the kingdom is created only by passing through the foundation. I equate this path with the Fool, the descent of spirit into physical manifestation...

I'm in the process of using the a'ri tree and the English alphabet to create a majickal system of my own....


fly well
Raven