ravenest
I'm sorry but I don’t really see anything particularly different about this. It’s just the 'four world' or the 'system of four' principle.
This four system is not particular to the Kabbalah or the Zohar, it is a basic principle of nature. The Kabbalah and Zohar use their terminology to explain it. Just because a 'culture' explains this principle in its own terms does not mean the concept 'comes from Zoharic forces' - I will grant you that the Zoharic FORM of expression comes from Zoharic sources but that is a little self-evident isn’t it? Centre of principle = archetypal pattern / DNA code or whatever analogy one chooses, thought form/angel, creative process/letter.
The magazine article I posted a link to earlier in this thread displays many ,manifestations of this principle; 4 colour theory, 4 forces of physics, 4 principles of Aikido, 4 male archetypes, 4 psychological drives, four genetic bases (GACT), the four worlds of the Kabbalah and so on ... they are not just things that there are four of ... they function and interact in a specific 'elemental' order akin to fire, water, air, earth. That’s why in balanced systems of four it is best to be in that order. In systems of three (like the three Gunas) they often have the fourth as a pendant ... doing this with the elements (i.e.) seeing earth as containing the first three and depicting them 'alone' we have the triangle I explained previously with 'air' 'first'.
Sorry, no one owns this theory ... only their cultural terms that describe it. I will grant you though most here may have come to it via 'Kabbalah'. My Koori friends (indigenous Australians) know all about it and utilise it every day and they have never heard of Kabbalah.
There is a vast amount of M theory that seems to coincide with Kabbalistic theory and that is because of what I outlined above. They are both describing, in their own cultural terms, a process in 'nature'. When M theory and Kabbalah is followed through properly we find the source is not one but none.
That is a very strong principle outside Kabbalah as well. Especially with the indigenous here and all over the place, the oldest rock .... the first ancestor, the first form of the cave painting of an animal, that generates out from it all the physical animals. It’s all connected ... its nature ... no one expression owns it or has the secrets of its functioning, to the observant it is self-evident.
I agree with you but still, I fail to see that this is very different or secret from the other ways of looking at it. A physicist will be changed in consciousness by looking into matter and apparently ‘matter’ will change by having the physicist observe it.
And also we use non-verbal communication to explain non-verbal concepts, symbolic language, or sub-text if you like ... even visual sub-text is better. We are dealing with the unconscious, hence we find the 'language' of myth, the visual and whole experience of ritual drama, storytelling, enactment, dance, initiation, ceremonies both stark and pompous, initiations alone and abandoned and in community.
This four system is not particular to the Kabbalah or the Zohar, it is a basic principle of nature. The Kabbalah and Zohar use their terminology to explain it. Just because a 'culture' explains this principle in its own terms does not mean the concept 'comes from Zoharic forces' - I will grant you that the Zoharic FORM of expression comes from Zoharic sources but that is a little self-evident isn’t it? Centre of principle = archetypal pattern / DNA code or whatever analogy one chooses, thought form/angel, creative process/letter.
The magazine article I posted a link to earlier in this thread displays many ,manifestations of this principle; 4 colour theory, 4 forces of physics, 4 principles of Aikido, 4 male archetypes, 4 psychological drives, four genetic bases (GACT), the four worlds of the Kabbalah and so on ... they are not just things that there are four of ... they function and interact in a specific 'elemental' order akin to fire, water, air, earth. That’s why in balanced systems of four it is best to be in that order. In systems of three (like the three Gunas) they often have the fourth as a pendant ... doing this with the elements (i.e.) seeing earth as containing the first three and depicting them 'alone' we have the triangle I explained previously with 'air' 'first'.
Sorry, no one owns this theory ... only their cultural terms that describe it. I will grant you though most here may have come to it via 'Kabbalah'. My Koori friends (indigenous Australians) know all about it and utilise it every day and they have never heard of Kabbalah.
There is a vast amount of M theory that seems to coincide with Kabbalistic theory and that is because of what I outlined above. They are both describing, in their own cultural terms, a process in 'nature'. When M theory and Kabbalah is followed through properly we find the source is not one but none.
That is a very strong principle outside Kabbalah as well. Especially with the indigenous here and all over the place, the oldest rock .... the first ancestor, the first form of the cave painting of an animal, that generates out from it all the physical animals. It’s all connected ... its nature ... no one expression owns it or has the secrets of its functioning, to the observant it is self-evident.
I agree with you but still, I fail to see that this is very different or secret from the other ways of looking at it. A physicist will be changed in consciousness by looking into matter and apparently ‘matter’ will change by having the physicist observe it.
And also we use non-verbal communication to explain non-verbal concepts, symbolic language, or sub-text if you like ... even visual sub-text is better. We are dealing with the unconscious, hence we find the 'language' of myth, the visual and whole experience of ritual drama, storytelling, enactment, dance, initiation, ceremonies both stark and pompous, initiations alone and abandoned and in community.
