Kingdubrock
Hi,
I've been reading through this section for a bit and honestly it's like having my brains scrambled by a weed whacker. I am impressed with peoples ability to juggle so many systems of correspondences, remembering hebrew words, letters and concepts, debating the minutiae. On one hand I am hugely attracted to this material. But I also have to confess that from the outside looking in, the mapping of tarot onto the tree of life seems fraught with so many issues, to the extent that swapping card orders around and so on seems almost unavoidable. As a result I am unable to proceed with grappling with the material due to a nagging feeling that the two systems are not, in essence, particularly related and might be an avoidable goose chase for me.
It reminds me a little of a business efficiency model called the Theory of Constraints, where, while initially startling and illuminating and appearing to work, becomes so complex, with so many caveats and revisions as more questions and circumstances arise, and/or when people try to harmonize or enhance it with something like systems theory, that it starts to become unmanageable. People seem to stick to TOC theory primarily because they have already invested so much energy into it.
So, at the risk of being tedious, or too newbie-ish to backtrack for, I was hoping I could ask a few questions, so I can get oriented at the most basic level. (I tried to read through the beginner thread but it had so many broken links as it was made in 2007). Please, also forgive me if my questions come up over and over. Im really smart in some ways but also really dense in others, especially if I am not presented with information in a certain order, with basic assumptions revealed up front.
So here goes:
1) Why do we believe that the meanings of the tarot cards are "esoterically" linked to Kabbalah? In other words, without immersing ourselves in the mindset of specific early occultists who said they were, would a solid and sensible correspondence likely have presented itself or made itself apparent in a different context? For example, would a medieval Jewish Kabbalist, in a syncretic mood, if handed a pack of cards recognize an informed kabbalistic viewpoint in the images?
2) Are the assertions of early occultists that the images of the Marseille tarot were "exoteric" (at best) or naive (at worst) and that their own attributions are the "true" ones, still assumed or accepted by GD/Thelema adherents, or is it more a case that while of uncertain historical veracity, the "hermetic" attributions and correspondences are deemed sufficiently meaningful, coherent and effective in their own right as to constitute a valid (if "new") spiritual system?
3) Did Path-working exist before the GD? Like, do Lurianic kabbalists do pathworking? Are there non-GD related books or teachings one can read that are not derivative of or traceable to GD teachings?
4) Has the proliferation of information about Jewish kabbalah, by Jewish kabbalists since the time of the GD forced any reconsideration or adaptation, or is it a case where if they are deemed to be inherently at odds, (if thats the case, i have no idea) the conflict would simply be ignored?
I ask this because as someone with a long-time grounding in Buddhism, the writings, systems, correspondences, speculations and fusions which were embedded by Theosophists and occultists in the early days of importing Buddhism to the West, have largely been abandoned as the original traditions have been increasingly made available and disseminated over time. There are still Theosophists who try to identify or reconcile the Book of Dzyan with, say, the kalachakra. But no one would, if they werent already heavily invested in Theosophy. But on the other hand, there are theosophists who dont feel particularly bound by the original teachings of the society and are in some cases highly credible scholars in their own right.
Is there a parallel to this in GD circles, or is the original system presented pretty much as-is, and absorbing and integrating new or conflicting information understood to be up to the discretion of the individual?
Last,
5) What is THE best way, or resource, for getting my head around this stuff (ideally one that at least to some extent contextualizes and traces the material to pre or non GD systems. I am always more comfortable learning spiritual subject matter in a "non-sectarian" fashion in order to be able to recognize and evaluate sectarian assertions and innovations).
I've been reading through this section for a bit and honestly it's like having my brains scrambled by a weed whacker. I am impressed with peoples ability to juggle so many systems of correspondences, remembering hebrew words, letters and concepts, debating the minutiae. On one hand I am hugely attracted to this material. But I also have to confess that from the outside looking in, the mapping of tarot onto the tree of life seems fraught with so many issues, to the extent that swapping card orders around and so on seems almost unavoidable. As a result I am unable to proceed with grappling with the material due to a nagging feeling that the two systems are not, in essence, particularly related and might be an avoidable goose chase for me.
It reminds me a little of a business efficiency model called the Theory of Constraints, where, while initially startling and illuminating and appearing to work, becomes so complex, with so many caveats and revisions as more questions and circumstances arise, and/or when people try to harmonize or enhance it with something like systems theory, that it starts to become unmanageable. People seem to stick to TOC theory primarily because they have already invested so much energy into it.
So, at the risk of being tedious, or too newbie-ish to backtrack for, I was hoping I could ask a few questions, so I can get oriented at the most basic level. (I tried to read through the beginner thread but it had so many broken links as it was made in 2007). Please, also forgive me if my questions come up over and over. Im really smart in some ways but also really dense in others, especially if I am not presented with information in a certain order, with basic assumptions revealed up front.
So here goes:
1) Why do we believe that the meanings of the tarot cards are "esoterically" linked to Kabbalah? In other words, without immersing ourselves in the mindset of specific early occultists who said they were, would a solid and sensible correspondence likely have presented itself or made itself apparent in a different context? For example, would a medieval Jewish Kabbalist, in a syncretic mood, if handed a pack of cards recognize an informed kabbalistic viewpoint in the images?
2) Are the assertions of early occultists that the images of the Marseille tarot were "exoteric" (at best) or naive (at worst) and that their own attributions are the "true" ones, still assumed or accepted by GD/Thelema adherents, or is it more a case that while of uncertain historical veracity, the "hermetic" attributions and correspondences are deemed sufficiently meaningful, coherent and effective in their own right as to constitute a valid (if "new") spiritual system?
3) Did Path-working exist before the GD? Like, do Lurianic kabbalists do pathworking? Are there non-GD related books or teachings one can read that are not derivative of or traceable to GD teachings?
4) Has the proliferation of information about Jewish kabbalah, by Jewish kabbalists since the time of the GD forced any reconsideration or adaptation, or is it a case where if they are deemed to be inherently at odds, (if thats the case, i have no idea) the conflict would simply be ignored?
I ask this because as someone with a long-time grounding in Buddhism, the writings, systems, correspondences, speculations and fusions which were embedded by Theosophists and occultists in the early days of importing Buddhism to the West, have largely been abandoned as the original traditions have been increasingly made available and disseminated over time. There are still Theosophists who try to identify or reconcile the Book of Dzyan with, say, the kalachakra. But no one would, if they werent already heavily invested in Theosophy. But on the other hand, there are theosophists who dont feel particularly bound by the original teachings of the society and are in some cases highly credible scholars in their own right.
Is there a parallel to this in GD circles, or is the original system presented pretty much as-is, and absorbing and integrating new or conflicting information understood to be up to the discretion of the individual?
Last,
5) What is THE best way, or resource, for getting my head around this stuff (ideally one that at least to some extent contextualizes and traces the material to pre or non GD systems. I am always more comfortable learning spiritual subject matter in a "non-sectarian" fashion in order to be able to recognize and evaluate sectarian assertions and innovations).