Sephirahs as images...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Sephirahs as images.  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2009 10:31 pm  

93

I`d like to know if any of the forumist would have some sources where I would be able to find pictures of Tree of lifes sephirahs as pictures or images. The pictures don`t necessarily have to match those further descriptions, only the intent of making the sephirahs more familiar and close in human-form is enough. Though; it doesn`t necessarily have to be as human, but not for example in the form where only the colours of sephirahs are added, as I have seen those few already. I know that everyone has their own way to make tree of life more close subjectively and I`m not totally dependable on the images, but good suggestions would propably help. So here are these descriptions, what I as an not-so-good drawer would not like to draw:

Kether: an acient bearded king, seen in profile.

Chokmah: a bearded male.

Binah: a mother figure.

Chesed: a mighty crowned and throned king.

Geburah: a mighty warrior in his chariot.

Tiphareth: a majestic king, a child, a sacrificed god.

Netzach: a beautiful naked woman.

Hod: an hermaphrodite.

Yesod: a handsome naked man-very strong.

Malkuth: a young woman,crowned and throned.

Thanks,

93/93
Azoneris


Quote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
13/10/2009 11:45 pm  

I wonder, why is it that Netzach is traditionally (or at least in Crowley's 777) 'a beautiful naked woman' while Hod is a hermaphrodite. I find this gender imbalance somewhat intriguing. Any thoughts?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 12:05 am  
"Iskandar" wrote:
I wonder, why is it that Netzach is traditionally (or at least in Crowley's 777) 'a beautiful naked woman' while Hod is a hermaphrodite. I find this gender imbalance somewhat intriguing. Any thoughts?

It's because of the Mercurial association. "Hermaphrodite" derives from Hermaphroditus, the intersex son of Hermes and Aphrodite. Alchemical literature often ascribes a hermaphroditic character to Mercury, presumably because even though it's a metal, it's liquid at room temperature. Even in modern biology, the sign of Venus represents female, the sign of Mars represents male, and the sign of Mercury represents double-sexed.

The association of Venus with 'a beautiful naked woman' is presumably obvious.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/10/2009 12:24 am  

The entire set of descriptions from Azeronis is gender-imbalanced. And what's with all the kings anyway? I'd guess those came from Waite or some other Christian influenced so-called "cabalist". They apparently have little relation to the source material (ie the planetary foundation of the sephirot).

First: none of the sephirot, technically, have a gender. However, there are certain gender associations that "make sense" symbolically to be one or the other. These are:

Chockmah: Primary masculine, the source of the masculine 'current', hence typically 'father'
Binah: Primary feminine, typically 'mother'
Hod: Mercury, fluid, mutable, hence Hermaphrodite

Everything else, aside from kether, can be either male or female and still make sense symbolically.

Kether: a crown. Not 'male king', not 'female queen', just a crown. Pre-gender, pre-everything. Of all the sephirot to avoid anthropomorphizing the most, this one is it.
Chesed: throned king, typically
Geburah: warrior, male or female
Tiphareth: sacrificed god or goddess
Netzach: beautiful woman, typically
Yesod: young woman or young man
Malkuth: fertile female, typically, but also the 'green man'

There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't make up your own gender and imagery. I would start with the planetary associations and work from there. For example, Netzach is associated with Venus. If you're an average heterosexual male, a beautiful naked woman might inspire the passions related to Venus, but if you're not, an image of Adonis might be more appropriate. Just as Diana or Sekhmet might be more appropriate symbols for Geburah/Mars for some people rather than the "mighty warrior in his chariot". Or just as Persephone is perfectly suitable for Tiphareth, for those who wish to explore something other than the typical sacrificial god.

Also: try collage if drawing is difficult for you. I'll post photos of mine later when I switch computers.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
14/10/2009 1:42 am  

Maybe I was not clear, however, both Erwin and Mika have provided fine explanations. I understand that Hermaphrodite is a child of Hermes and Aphrodite and precisely because of that I find the attributions somewhat puzzling (as it should be). The reason: Aphrodite fits nicely on Netzach, why then put on Hod a mix between her and Hermes, why not simply Hermes? However, I think that the reason is that both Netzach and Hod reflect 'gender identity' imperfectly. The 'true' man is in Chockmah and the 'true' woman in Binah (according to this way of looking at things at least). The 'corruption' of Netzach, Venus, would consist in superficiality (her virtue is on the outside, which is her beauty, only a skin-deep), while a 'true' woman would be a mother (or fertile generally speaking, not necessarily or only biologically). The 'corruption' of Hod is that he not the true representative of Wisdom, that would be Chokmah; Hod is 'just' mercurial, the reason. And I guess, the fault of reason as opposed to wisdom is in the lack of that phallic quality which one may call creative or inspirational. Something like that.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 3:08 am  
"Iskandar" wrote:
Maybe I was not clear, however, both Erwin and Mika have provided fine explanations. I understand that Hermaphrodite is a child of Hermes and Aphrodite and precisely because of that I find the attributions somewhat puzzling (as it should be). The reason: Aphrodite fits nicely on Netzach, why then put on Hod a mix between her and Hermes, why not simply Hermes?

Well, because that's the traditional correspondence of Mercury, and Mercury corresponds to Hod.

"Iskandar" wrote:
However, I think that the reason is that both Netzach and Hod reflect 'gender identity' imperfectly.

Most of the correspondences are largely a result of tradition. Although one can come up with rationales for them, they weren't deliberately created as a presentation of a theory of "gender identity" or anything else. The correspondences are, essentially, what they are, and all attempts to get them to fit neatly into coherent packages are likely to fail since they don't arise from a particularly scientific or systematic source. Although one can reflect upon issues such as "gender identity", attempting to derive "reasons" for why the correspondences are what they are in this way is a dubious practice.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
14/10/2009 3:23 am  

Oh sure Erwin, but I did not raise the issue of 'gender imbalance' as a gesture of political correctness. I mostly meant it literally: if you put on one side a woman, why not put on the other a man but rather a hermaphrodite?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 4:13 am  
"Iskandar" wrote:
Oh sure Erwin, but I did not raise the issue of 'gender imbalance' as a gesture of political correctness. I mostly meant it literally: if you put on one side a woman, why not put on the other a man but rather a hermaphrodite?

Why would you, if you were doing anything other than attempting to construct a gender-balanced tree? If we were trying to ascribe Swedish prime ministers to the Sephiroth, for instance, you wouldn't be asking why their genders don't balance perfectly. Mercury is associated with Hod, and the hermaphrodite is associated with Mercury, and that's just how it is.

The "imbalance" doesn't look strange unless that's what you're expecting to see there. If that wasn't the intent of whoever first came up with the correspondences, it shouldn't be surprising that they don't balance. If they were put together in a more-or-less haphazard way, then pretty much any partial pattern you find is a bonus.

And that's before we even get to the fact that the Qabalah itself existed for a long time before the Tree of Life glyph did. Those correspondences might have been worked out before there even were two opposing pillars, for all I know. I just don't think asking why the correspondences came to be what they are is either an answerable or a useful question, even if we can come up with plausible justifications for the way they are after the event.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/10/2009 4:31 am  
"Iskandar" wrote:
I mostly meant it literally: if you put on one side a woman,

There's your error right there - you're contemplating the symbolism literally. Netzach is not "a woman", nor is Venus "a woman". Venus is the planetary association of Netzach, and both Venus and Netzach represent concepts, aspects of the self and universe.

It might help if you thought in terms of masculine and feminine rather than male or female, while keeping in mind that each sephira is an aspect of your inner universe. For example, Binah isn't merely "the great mother", Binah represents the primary feminine receptive nature within *you*. At the same time, Binah is also sometimes appropriately associated with Saturn, father time. That doesn't make it a mostly female, sometimes male sephira, it just means Binah is a feminine aspect that can be represented by both female and male gods.

Or consider Geburah - Mars is generally considered masculine in nature, yet one of the most powerful images of Geburah is a mother violently protecting her child. The gender of the symbol (if any) is relatively arbitrary, what's relevant is the nature of the sephira itself.

"Iskandar" wrote:
while a 'true' woman would be a mother (or fertile generally speaking, not necessarily or only biologically)

Holy crap! Why don't you tell that to Babalon, and see how she responds!


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
14/10/2009 5:08 am  
"Iskandar" wrote:
while a 'true' woman would be a mother (or fertile generally speaking, not necessarily or only biologically)

Holy crap! Why don't you tell that to Babalon, and see how she responds!

Oh, I would have, but she was out having a lunch with Baphomet. Who's confusing the symbols now? Ridiculous.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/10/2009 5:28 am  
"Iskandar" wrote:
"Iskandar" wrote:
while a 'true' woman would be a mother (or fertile generally speaking, not necessarily or only biologically)

Holy crap! Why don't you tell that to Babalon, and see how she responds!

Oh, I would have, but she was out having a lunch with Baphomet. Who's confusing the symbols now? Ridiculous.

What symbols do you think I'm confusing? You stated a limited concept of what constitutes a "true woman", I responded with an alternative perspective. I mean, really, do you think women who are infertile or have no interest in any kind of nurturing, motherly role are not "true women"?


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
14/10/2009 6:41 am  

No Mika, I don't think that "women who are infertile [etc.] are not 'true women.'" And precisely for that reason I stated "according to this way of looking at things at least." And also, precisely for that reason I also stated in the same post that 'fertility,' traditionally associated with Binah (the symbol of which is mother) does not have to mean biological fertility. I was also thinking at the time of writing that post how often Crowley associated giving birth to children with a true vocation of a woman (I'm paraphrasing), something I am not very much comfortable with. But the traditional symbols - let's take the Gnostic Mass as an example - do associate Father (Chaos in the Credo of the Mass) with Chokmah and Mother (Babalon in the Mass) with Binah. I take this to mean that the 'true' man and the 'true' woman are creative, fertile, life-giving, life-affirming, but principally (to repeat myself) creative. I am perplexed that you would consider that on the basis of the above I would want to imply that infertile women (in biological sense) and those who are not 'motherly' are not true women. There is no doubt, however, that Crowley seemed to have maintained some similar view and due to his influence in the matters thelemic, I am rather uneasy with his position. The same goes to his rant against women and their lack of soul in Liber Aleph, which is otherwise one of his most mature books. I just find it unfortunate that he did not edit some of his statements. Nor am I arguing for some PC, but if every man and every woman is a star, and they are, there is, in my opinion, no place for this 'women have no souls" talk among Thelemites.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 7:49 am  
"Iskandar" wrote:
Nor am I arguing for some PC, but if every man and every woman is a star, and they are, there is, in my opinion, no place for this 'women have no souls" talk among Thelemites.

Why not? Men don't have "souls", either.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 10:01 am  
"mika" wrote:
The entire set of descriptions from Azeronis is gender-imbalanced. And what's with all the kings anyway? I'd guess those came from Waite or some other Christian influenced so-called "cabalist". They apparently have little relation to the source material (ie the planetary foundation of the sephirot).

Especially the description of Kether as a bearded KING felt weird for me,since kether should be beyond masculine(Chokmah) and feminine(Binah). I ripped those descriptions from Charles Fieldings "Practical Qabalah" as I thought those would give enough direction, at least, since I don`t have my own descriptions. At least yet. πŸ™‚
I also wanted to underline that I don`t bow to those descriptions mentioned, as I said "The pictures don`t necessarily have to match those further descriptions, only the intent of making the sephirahs more familiar and close in human-form is enough."

"mika" wrote:
Also: try collage if drawing is difficult for you. I'll post photos of mine later when I switch computers.

It would be great if you could post your photos - tnx.

"erwin" wrote:
Iskandar wrote: β€Ί Select β€Ίβ€Ή Expand
Nor am I arguing for some PC, but if every man and every woman is a star, and they are, there is, in my opinion, no place for this 'women have no souls" talk among Thelemites.

Why not? Men don't have "souls", either.

Maybe it should be defined what is ment by `soul` first, because as I have seen people have different semantics concerning that word, especially on these times when all the spiritualism/occultism has become "pop", everyone must have their opinion... πŸ™„

93
Azoneris


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 10:34 am  

Just to add.. I also know that you can always add a God for each sephira and use 10 seconds to google it for example, but that`s not now really what I am looking for and I assume it become clear on the beginning.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 1:06 pm  
"Azoneris" wrote:
Maybe it should be defined what is ment by `soul` first

Dictionary to the rescue:

"the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 1:18 pm  

Soul for me is the tree of life as fourfold in Atziluth,Briah, Yetzirah and Assiah. It can be also called consciousness, manifestations of the deity or emanations of the absolute - The words are not as necessary as the understanding on what is ment. Usually when the question "Do women have a soul?" comes for me to concern, my first thoughts are that Every man and every woman is a star and that also every woman also have Hadit in their core. When saying that women have a soul, to me it means that also they have a chance to rise on the tree and that they have a possibility to fullfill their personal work, and they are not mere vehicles for men to fullfill their Great Work.

93 93/93
Azoneris


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1609
14/10/2009 3:26 pm  

it means that also they have a chance to rise on the tree and that they have a possibility to fullfill their personal work, and they are not mere vehicles for men to fullfill their Great Work.

What ? Don't you know Eve was created for Adam and not the other way around πŸ™‚


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2009 4:22 pm  
"Tiger" wrote:

it means that also they have a chance to rise on the tree and that they have a possibility to fullfill their personal work, and they are not mere vehicles for men to fullfill their Great Work.

What ? Don't you know Eve was created for Adam and not the other way around πŸ™‚

The smilie you added on the end of your post suggest to me you ment that as a joke (a good one), but I just say it doesn`t have to neither/nor-case that it`s "man for woman" or "woman for man" if you ment to be more serious.

93
Azoneris


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
15/10/2009 1:42 am  

Tree of Life Collage 1998

http://yfrog.com/9fphotos5avj x"> http://yfrog.com/9fphotos5avjx

or try this

http://img339.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=photos5av.jp g"> [/url]


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1609
15/10/2009 3:10 am  

try this

that was fun !


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
15/10/2009 5:19 am  

Interesting!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2009 7:10 am  

Thanks!

93/93
Azoneris


ReplyQuote
wolfangel
(@wolfangel)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 32
15/10/2009 4:38 pm  

So what gender/sex is the entire tree ? Dendrophiles need not answer.

I find it easier to approach the polarities using the ideas of mercy and severity, but even they are interchangeable.

As to images, simple abstract shapes and colours remove the need for any gender entirely and still carry passion and the conscious forms attributed to the sephirah.

Its possible to approach the tree as a series of sigils, paths and sephirah, the planetary and zodiac along with the elements, just by adding various colour scales.

The symbolic forms of Alchemy are another good place to start.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2009 4:55 pm  

The tree also uses this ziczac kind of movement that Binah manifests in Chesed and moves into Hod. Same with Chokmah/geburah/Netzach - I got a bit confused on this `cause what happens then to the unity of each pillar as exact pillar of severity or exact pillar of mercy as those are confused like that when the Sephirahs sides on tree are kinda turned opposite when going more down the tree. ❓

93
Azoneris


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
15/10/2009 7:31 pm  
"Azoneris" wrote:
The tree also uses this ziczac kind of movement that Binah manifests in Chesed and moves into Hod. Same with Chokmah/geburah/Netzach - I got a bit confused on this `cause what happens then to the unity of each pillar as exact pillar of severity or exact pillar of mercy as those are confused like that when the Sephirahs sides on tree are kinda turned opposite when going more down the tree. ❓

93
Azoneris

The tree is like any other map - consider a road map, to get from a to b you can take side streets, highways, bike trails, you can meander here and there or take a train on a set route, plus any combination of all of the above. "The unity of each pillar" that you mention is an observation of one particular set of routes. The 'zig zag' you mention is an observation of a different set of routes. These do not have to conform to eachother, just as a bike trail is not going to conform to the path established by a highway. Nothing "happens" to the "unity" or purity or whatever of a particular route when you observe or use a different route. They're simply different perspectives of the same territory.

For example, from one angle, Chockmah is related to fire and Binah is related to water. From another angle, Chockmah is water and Binah is fire. From yet another angle, both Chockmah and Binah are associated with fire. Each of these three perspectives are valid - they make sense, there are no contradictions with the kabbalistic system or symbolism - but they are based on viewing the tree differently. Those three perspectives can't be unified, just as you can't simultaneously walk, bike and drive along the same road. But you can walk that road, then bike it, then drive it, as separate experiences.

In general, based on the questions you're asking, it seems that you are trying to come up with a 'unified theory' of the tree of life. That's not going to happen. I've been there, and probably so has everyone who has worked with this symbolism - it's a natural tendency to look for order and symmetry. But that's not how this system works. You look at the tree from different perspectives and come up with different insights.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2009 7:46 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Azoneris" wrote:
The tree also uses this ziczac kind of movement that Binah manifests in Chesed and moves into Hod. Same with Chokmah/geburah/Netzach - I got a bit confused on this `cause what happens then to the unity of each pillar as exact pillar of severity or exact pillar of mercy as those are confused like that when the Sephirahs sides on tree are kinda turned opposite when going more down the tree. ❓

93
Azoneris

The tree is like any other map - consider a road map, to get from a to b you can take side streets, highways, bike trails, you can meander here and there or take a train on a set route, plus any combination of all of the above. "The unity of each pillar" that you mention is an observation of one particular set of routes. The 'zig zag' you mention is an observation of a different set of routes. These do not have to conform to eachother, just as a bike trail is not going to conform to the path established by a highway. Nothing "happens" to the "unity" or purity or whatever of a particular route when you observe or use a different route. They're simply different perspectives of the same territory.

For example, from one angle, Chockmah is related to fire and Binah is related to water. From another angle, Chockmah is water and Binah is fire. From yet another angle, both Chockmah and Binah are associated with fire. Each of these three perspectives are valid - they make sense, there are no contradictions with the kabbalistic system or symbolism - but they are based on viewing the tree differently. Those three perspectives can't be unified, just as you can't simultaneously walk, bike and drive along the same road. But you can walk that road, then bike it, then drive it, as separate experiences.

In general, based on the questions you're asking, it seems that you are trying to come up with a 'unified theory' of the tree of life. That's not going to happen. I've been there, and probably so has everyone who has worked with this symbolism - it's a natural tendency to look for order and symmetry. But that's not how this system works. You look at the tree from different perspectives and come up with different insights.

Well you got that right - Especially lately I`ve come into finding that many symbolic attributes on the tree that I`ve gathered with tables or by just memory are right from their viewpoint, and shouldn`t be necessarily compared or at least those shouldn`t "fight" against each other. I`ve tried to find an unified theory on tree of life and come up with paradoxes, confusion and frustration at times. "No I found it! No I didn`t!"-experiences one after another. Good to know I am not the only one. The search goes on... πŸ™‚

93/93 93
Azoneris


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2009 7:48 pm  

Oops, I made an error. I ment to write: "Now I found it" , instead of "No I found it" - seemingly meaningfull error though...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/10/2009 4:43 pm  
"Iskandar" wrote:
Maybe I was not clear, however, both Erwin and Mika have provided fine explanations. I understand that Hermaphrodite is a child of Hermes and Aphrodite and precisely because of that I find the attributions somewhat puzzling (as it should be). The reason: Aphrodite fits nicely on Netzach, why then put on Hod a mix between her and Hermes, why not simply Hermes?

By the way, in the 777 tables of Greek Gods it's Hermes that is attributed to Hod, not the god Hermaphrodite.

The way I see it, if someone says that Mercury or Hod is hermaphroditic, it's to emphasize certain qualities or properties of these concepts. For instance, even though Hermes is usually depicted as a male figure and he has male qualities, there are many qualities in him that are hermaphroditic in some way. He's a god of dualities, the related element of Air is also a combination of Fire and Water; there are many masculine-feminine dualities in the functioning of the mind and intelligence; there's solve and coagula, analysis and synthesis, etc; the indifference of Mercury is not either male or female; etc, etc.

The hermaphroditic attribution is basically a mnemonic to remind your mind of these issues.

Also, I see the relationship of the Sephiras so that every Sephira is in some sense more masculine than the ones below it. Thus, for example, both Geburah and Tiphareth are more masculine than Netzach, and Netzach is more masculine than Hod.

"Azoneris" wrote:
Well you got that right - Especially lately I`ve come into finding that many symbolic attributes on the tree that I`ve gathered with tables or by just memory are right from their viewpoint, and shouldn`t be necessarily compared or at least those shouldn`t "fight" against each other. I`ve tried to find an unified theory on tree of life and come up with paradoxes, confusion and frustration at times. "No I found it! No I didn`t!"-experiences one after another. Good to know I am not the only one. The search goes on...

Actually, I think it's good you try to go through these thoughts until you teach your mind a more proper way to think of the Tree, the numbers and the attributes. For instance, if you want to understand what Hod is like, you can use the attributions in 777 but you must remember that they only describe a certain aspect of Hod. Mercury is not equivalent to Hod but they have many properties in common, and it's these common properties you're interested in when trying to figure out the nature of Hod.

Similarly, Aphrodite and Venus are very similar, but they are not exactly the same because they have some different properties, such as the name and the cultural background.

Now, I'm not a very skilled Qabalist, but I remember when I started I also was seriously confused and irritated by all these attributions. Around the time I had also heard of the Identity of Indiscernibles princible of Leibniz, though I didn't spend much time trying to understand it. Then one day, trying quite hard to figure out these problems of Qabalah, I suddenly intuitively undestood what Leibniz meant with the principle and I could employ the principle with my Qabalistic work. It's after I started getting insights like this that I felt like the Qabalah and the Tree started to become at least useful in some sense.

anpi


ReplyQuote
wolfangel
(@wolfangel)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 32
16/10/2009 10:35 pm  

Another aspect to consider when looking at the notion of paths is that often i forget i am using a 2d map, when i remember the 4 worlds and the 3d view of the tree, the connections between the sephirah in adjoining worlds becomes even more complex.

There are some inherent problems in thinking about the tree as a flat plane, its not so much stacked flat maps on top of each other with connection points. But perhaps 3 dimensional attributions that also contain the notion of time, another variable often left out of the conception of the tree ( i guess to emphasise an eternal nature ) included thou it means time does not have to be considered to move in a linear manner either.

The idea of a creation point (and destination) does preclude a non linear infinite potential when it comes to movement through space and time and the forms used in consciousness to dictate limits or boundary's to mental representation.

As a map i feel it suffers from a 2dimensional restriction and a seemingly linear story of temporal progress. Its also part of the problem in attributing static images, abstracts and other symbols. The idea that the map tries to imply a permanency becomes very apparent.

However it still seems to function as a useful map to mystical/magical exploration.


ReplyQuote
wolfangel
(@wolfangel)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 32
16/10/2009 10:44 pm  

Since the map is an abstract awareness of relationships and the interactions of interchangeable patterns, would it not be possible to divide the awareness and multi task all the roots mentioned in the metaphor at the same time, thinking about it and breaking the egoic form down into many id's it may be possible. Not as awareness shifting, but as awareness becoming the entire structure. All seeing eyes as opposed to one giant eye that is all seeing. (more theory than that much practice thou)


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
16/10/2009 11:27 pm  
"wolfangel" wrote:
But perhaps 3 dimensional attributions that also contain the notion of time, another variable often left out of the conception of the tree

Time is most certainly not left out of the conception of the tree. Time is an inherent part of the tree, as represented by the astrological 'wheel of the year', the planetary days of the week, and as represented by geburah, where the 'formation' of chesed is subjected to the concept of change (time) during the process of creation from kether to malkuth.

You may want to review the Sefer Yetzirah
http://www.holyebooks.org/judaism/sepher_yetzirah.html
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/txt/kaplan_sy_short.html

from http://www.wbenjamin.org/saadia.html
"The author of our book [the SY] intends to show us how the existence of beings is realized. When the wise grasped this knowledge, they discovered the ten and only ten categories which reason can use to order all things: substance, quantity, quality, relation, space, time, possession, position, action, and passivity. "

from http://www.inner.org/hebleter/letterof.htm
"Each letter of these three categories relates (in one-to-one correspondence) to an individual element in each of the three general dimensions of created reality: space, time, living soul"

"wolfangel" wrote:
As a map i feel it suffers from a 2dimensional restriction and a seemingly linear story of temporal progress. Its also part of the problem in attributing static images, abstracts and other symbols. The idea that the map tries to imply a permanency becomes very apparent.

Yes, a 2-D image can be restrictive, particularly if you confuse the map with the territory. But the tree of life says as little about personal temporal progress as a street map. Any implication of permanency, linearity or temporal progress comes from your own interpretation, not from the map itself. Your understanding of the tree seems to be based on wrong assumptions or faulty information.

"wolfangel" wrote:
Since the map is an abstract awareness of relationships and the interactions of interchangeable patterns

The map is not "an abstract awareness", it is an abstract representation. The awareness comes from you. You can look at the map as a whole, you can break it down, you can use it however you will. Whether or not those approaches provide you with useful insights is a different story.


ReplyQuote
wolfangel
(@wolfangel)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 32
18/10/2009 7:43 pm  

Time is most certainly not left out of the conception of the tree. Time is an inherent part of the tree, as represented by the astrological 'wheel of the year', the planetary days of the week, and as represented by geburah, where the 'formation' of chesed is subjected to the concept of change (time) during the process of creation from kether to malkuth.

My main criticism being it is linear as a temporal conception, fused with the cyclic notion which is characteristic of christian thinking and other cultures, but is not in line with the many modern theories of time.

"Each letter of these three categories relates (in one-to-one correspondence) to an individual element in each of the three general dimensions of created reality: space, time, living soul"

How would you personally relate to the idea of living information and the tree as a network of nodes.

Yes, a 2-D image can be restrictive, particularly if you confuse the map with the territory. But the tree of life says as little about personal temporal progress as a street map. Any implication of permanency, linearity or temporal progress comes from your own interpretation, not from the map itself. Your understanding of the tree seems to be based on wrong assumptions or faulty information.

My main problem here is the root in essentialist philosophies.

The map is not "an abstract awareness", it is an abstract representation. The awareness comes from you. You can look at the map as a whole, you can break it down, you can use it however you will. Whether or not those approaches provide you with useful insights is a different story.

Perhaps you are missing the point i am was trying to make here, we are the map, there is no separate observer, it is an improbable position to hold without being entangled in perception.


ReplyQuote
wolfangel
(@wolfangel)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 32
18/10/2009 8:08 pm  

Let me present another example of where i approach from, in christian cosmology their is this idea of there being a realm above and below, but from the view point of actually living on the earth their is the view point of around and within, the latter is more accurate to my perceptions, sensory and abstract. The notion of above and below offers a very false perception to the physical surroundings.

It is not a game of semantics, but imo a more accurate position to define characteristics from through the use of language.

The Q(k)(C)abalah seems to be rooted in a pre scientific cosmology, would it not help to make it a little more culturally pertinent to start its representations from these perspectives, grounded not so much in traditional conceptions or the authority of text's, but accurate personal observation and experimentation in its claimed representation as a map of cosmological principles. If the texts and traditions lead to that experimentation so much the better, but if they start to limit the philosophical approach, the autonomy of the interaction, their i see a problem with dogmatically implied limitations.

You perhaps could contrast two extremes as being 'this is the image of god' to ' a convenient filing cabinet of representations' not that the tree cannot be both of these.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/10/2009 4:01 pm  
"Iskandar" wrote:
Oh sure Erwin, but I did not raise the issue of 'gender imbalance' as a gesture of political correctness. I mostly meant it literally: if you put on one side a woman, why not put on the other a man but rather a hermaphrodite?

Maybe there is no such thing as pure male. It might go back to the idea od a woman being taken from a man in the Adam and Eve story. Man in that case contains the female within his body but the female is just female.


ReplyQuote
Share: