|
|
  |
 Qabalistic Attributions |
|
|
| Rick |
 Jan 9 2008, 07:21 AM
|
Neophyte
Posts: 33
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
Reputation: none
|
- "Witchcraft: theory and practice", Ly de Angeles: Kether: Neptune, Chokmah: Uranus, Da'ath: Chiron, Pluto as the "point where Kether becomes Ain Soph Aur"
- "Summoning spirits", Konstantinos: Kether: Uranus, Chokmah: Neptune
- www.thelemapedia.org: Kether: Pluto, Chokmah: Neptune, Da'ath: Uranus
I came across these different planetary associations of the Sephiroth, and thought it woulld be interesting to know which ones you use and why.
|
  
|
|
|
|
| Vagrant Dreamer |
Jan 9 2008, 12:00 PM
|
Practicus
Posts: 1,184
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Reputation: 51 pts
|
I have seen these attributions before, but I cannot say that I agree with them. It seems to me that modern practitioners needed to fit the outer planets into the kabbalistic scheme somehow, and so chose to associate the supernals with them. However, traditionally the supernal triad have no planetary attributions, because they are above and beyond the formative word, or Yetzirah, including Daath as a bridge between the creative and formative world with the outermost planet Saturn.
Likewise the angels and divine names associated with the supernal triad have no proper traditional attributions, according to Kabbalistic mystical tradition.
The Golden Dawn attributed Jupiter to both Kether and Chesed, for reasons I have never understood, The Zodiac to Chokmah, and Saturn and Binah.
It is to be granted that Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto were no discovered until after the formation of the bulk of kabbalistic texts. Binah is often associated - according to the Golden Dawn, at least, whose attributions I do not personally agree with in many cases - with Kronos, Time, hence Saturn is a logical attribution along that line of logic. However Neptune as the 'God of the Sea' - greek Poseidon - also fits Binah as the 'Great Mother Sea' of creativity from which the lower sephiroth arise. Pluto, greek Hades, associated with Death and the underworld, fits naturally into Daath. Chokmah fits with the zodiac as the primordial intelligence, the will, hermetically speaking, vs. the feminine creativity of Binah, as the zodiac is the governing force of purpose expressed into the individual, granting us through it's rays and configurations in the stars our astrological 'will', so to speak, so I would not attribute any planet to it, as none fit.
The attribution of Uranus for Kether makes only some slight sense, as Uranus was the primordial father of the Titans in mythology, Kether being the origin of all comprehensible existence, and the Titans representing the most basic, primordial elements of creation. However, Chokmah, called the Father, makes equal sense merely by the connection that both are Chokmah and Uranus are regarded as 'primordial fathers'.
It's a tricky bit of correspondence, so I guess it's not really surprising that there is some confusion between sources as to which goes where. The best source to go to would be a rabbi versed in kabbalistic mysticism - after all, it is a judaic subject. As far as I can tell, the original manuscripts cite no attributions for the outer planets at all, although I do have more books on the way here, they may say something different.
Other issues with the outer planets, however - they have no Kamea, are assigned no numerical values, are not assigned to any of the hebrew letters (seven doubles associated with seven planets, there is no more room, although they could be associated with the three mothers - that is a stretch given their other associations).
Even astrologically speaking, the outer planets govern generations of people, and have little influence on you as an individual. Almost every instance of their influence and association is far removed from the individual, and a lot of the associations commonly granted them are those that belonged to previously, or are shared by, one of the seven planets of the ancients.
Pluto is now hardly recognized as a planet. Uranus and Neptune are more certain. And there is a tenth 'planet' now isn't there? Where does it fit in?
Personally I don't associate any planets with the supernals. Their intelligences should, in my opinion, be approached as above and beyond the formative world all together, wherein reside the planetary influences. They are the primordial realms from which the formative world arises. I question the association of the zodiac with chokmah, as well, as they are constellations in the sky, but that is an older system, and I still don't quite understand fully why that was done as it was.
So, there's a bit to think about. Consider the qualities of the planets, the information available, and your own experience.
peace
--------------------
The world is complicated - that which makes it up is elegantly simplistic, but infinitely versatile.
|
|
|
|
|
| Imperial Arts |
Jan 9 2008, 08:21 PM
|
Zelator
Posts: 307
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Las Vegas
Reputation: 18 pts
|
QUOTE(Vagrant Dreamer @ Jan 9 2008, 10:00 AM)  Pluto is now hardly recognized as a planet. Uranus and Neptune are more certain. And there is a tenth 'planet' now isn't there? Where does it fit in?
There are dozens of lesser bodies floating around out there, including Sedna, Quaoar, and the other Oort Cloud objects, along with many others within the solar system itself. Few of these hold any interest for astrologers, and the general public tends to forget about their existence.
I think it's important to realize that attributions of planets and powers is an art, and that there is no hard rule. Sources will vary as to the placement of the Sephirot and their attributions, and astrology is even less consistent through the ages.
"Modern Numerology" by John King gives Kameas for the outer planets. The math works, so why not?
The attribution of Pluto to Kether, Neptune to Daath, and Uranus to Chokmah comes from Crowley. Golden Dawn Qabalah only vaguely resembles medieval Cabala, and this is itself a far stretch from Jewish Kabbalah, so I am welcome to the idea of interpreting the system for the inclusion of modern discoveries.
The ice belt may well be the last step before entering interstellar space, and has been considered one of the sources of all the water that has accumulated on earth by way of comet impacts. This may or may not be the case, but I feel that it's appropriate to place Pluto at the crown as it would fulfill the last stop in the system before entering vacant space.
Neptune has the most violent storms known to exist, under deep blue clouds pushed along with such force that diamonds form mid-air and fall in great quantities. It has more moons than any other body in the system, and sometimes it is truly 'far out." Neptune is normally invisible to the naked eye except under the very best conditions for someone who has precise measuring tools, and you'd have to be pretty obsessive to spot it without mechanical help. Aside from the very tiny objects beyond it, Neptune is the wanderer of the abyss.
Uranus is tilted sideways, and one pole is always dark though which pole depends on its season. It is covered in a sea of green ammonia many miles deep, and this would be my first suggestion to use as Uranus ritual incense. You can see Uranus sometimes with the naked eye, under the best conditions, as if it were just a faint star whose company are counted among the attributions of Chokmah.
The metal attributions I gave are mine, in case you might want to make a talisman.
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
| Vagrant Dreamer |
Jan 9 2008, 11:45 PM
|
Practicus
Posts: 1,184
Age: N/A
Gender: Male
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Reputation: 51 pts
|
QUOTE(Imperial Arts @ Jan 9 2008, 09:21 PM)
I think it's important to realize that attributions of planets and powers is an art, and that there is no hard rule. Sources will vary as to the placement of the Sephirot and their attributions, and astrology is even less consistent through the ages.
"Modern Numerology" by John King gives Kameas for the outer planets. The math works, so why not?
True enough. Modern Numerology is a book I'm not familiar with, do you happen to know off hand what numbers he assigned them? QUOTE(Imperial Arts @ Jan 9 2008, 09:21 PM)
The attribution of Pluto to Kether, Neptune to Daath, and Uranus to Chokmah comes from Crowley. Golden Dawn Qabalah only vaguely resembles medieval Cabala, and this is itself a far stretch from Jewish Kabbalah, so I am welcome to the idea of interpreting the system for the inclusion of modern discoveries.
I take a more objective view to the influence of the planets and their associations therein. While I'd agree there is some art to the attribution, the more I involve myself in the study of kabbalah, the more I find myself having to let go of previous more subjective opinions about how the sephirot and the 22 letters function and manifest in the universe. That trend has lead me to believe that assigning such a thing as a 'new' planetary power to the tree is a very tricky thing, not something you can do haphazardly. Not that I am suggesting crowley or the GD did so - but the more I become familiar with jewish kabbalah, the more sense it makes, and the less I agree with the GD interpretations. Still, the symbolism will get you somewhere. I just like to be sure about where it's getting me. QUOTE(Imperial Arts @ Jan 9 2008, 09:21 PM)
The ice belt may well be the last step before entering interstellar space, and has been considered one of the sources of all the water that has accumulated on earth by way of comet impacts. This may or may not be the case, but I feel that it's appropriate to place Pluto at the crown as it would fulfill the last stop in the system before entering vacant space.
This reminds me of the 'dragon' who encircles the universe. As far as assigning pluto to kether goes, that brings into question where to place tenth planet, Eris - farther out than, and bigger than, pluto. Do we demote pluto to one of the lower supernals? I do believe that they are both now 'dwarf planets' but that's just the astronomical classification. Bigger than moons. With ten planets, plus the sun and moon (a total of 12 celestial bodies) it starts to get a little crowded. I have seen a 'new' version of the tree of life... Here... which allows for the additional planets. I haven't really decided how I feel about that version though. The perfection of the number 10 is pretty thorough, but one might abide by the belief that creation is expanding over time. After all, mankind had no use for the sephirot 7-9 until we became 'homo sapiens' taking an evolutionary point of view. I'm on the fence, officially speaking. It's something to think about. peace This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Jan 9 2008, 11:46 PM
--------------------
The world is complicated - that which makes it up is elegantly simplistic, but infinitely versatile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Topics
Similar Topics
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
