From: shava@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Transmission of the Hebrew Language (was: Re: Amen)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:45:38 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <1992Apr02.075713.190705@zeus.calpoly.edu> jsteinbe@zeus.calpoly.edu (John Steinberg) writes:
>In article <joshua.702032975@coombs> joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller) writes:
>>>>jsteinbe@zeus.calpoly.edu (John Steinberg) writes:
>>>>> That the letters are not the result of human sense references,
>>>>>but were rather transmitted from some unknown source and which have
>>>>>over time been desecrated into an alphabet.
>>>>>Thus the kabbalah might even be seen as the wellspring
>>>>>of human language and possibly all human knowledge.... 
>
>>>>this is itself a jewish dogma. in other words, it sounds nice, but there
>>>>is no way to disprove or prove it.
>>
>>>Admittedly my post was conjectural, it seems obvious that it can't be proven
>>>or disproven; but does that qualify it as 'jewish dogma'? I thought
>>>that the vast majority of Jews don't take the Kabbala seriously.
>>
*grin* the vast majority of christians have not the first clue about 
most articles of christian dogma either, although they can probably
quote scripture.  Kabbala is a bit of extreme esoterica.  In old judaic
tradition, the requirement was that a man be in his 40's and married
before he could begin study of kaballah.  In itself, this means that a
vast majority of jews (50% of them female, maybe another 25% of the males
being too young and/or unmarried) have no reason to worry about whether
to take the kaballah seriously or not.

>>>An excellent book dealing with these ideas is 'The Qabala Trilogy' by
>>>Carlo Suares published by Shambala (perhaps it is Spanish dogma) :?  
>>
Hmm...  Is Suares a jew?  Contrary to popular belief, "jew" is not a
nationality or a race, but perhaps better a cultural heritage.  I am
jewish by birth (my mother is jewish) but I have an insignificant common
heritage, genetically, to a Yemenite jew.  I am probably much more 
closely related to, say, Hitler (even if he wasn't jewish in his 
background somewhere...).  Before the inquisitions, about 500 years 
ago, MANY MANY spaniards were jewish.  The jews and moors were catalysts
to the height the development of the spanish empire of that time.

So let's clarify this:

	'jew' is not a nationality
	'spanish' is not a religion (altho I believe a vast majority of
		spaniards are probably catholic)

Therefore, you can not assume that Suares is not a jew, nor could you
possibly categorize his works as spanish dogma.

>>also, if suares seriously maintains
>>that, he is even more of a flake than I thought.
>
>What is so objectionable about an idea which asserts that a body of
>knowledge is transmitted from an unknown source more highly evolved
>than humanity,to humanity,for the purpose of the enlightenment of 
>humanity,that you would brand a serious Kabbalistic author a
>super-flake because he agreed with that assertion?

Hmmm... There was this guy in the first part of this century, Al Somebody?
And there was this entity called Aiwass, who grabbed him and shook him
around a little bit, and the result was this little volume I have on a
bookshelf somewhere.  Now, I don't know about the nature of this 
transaction, but one assumes that any transaction between consenting
adults, even when it is arguably a transaction involving a single
defineable adult, is their business to define.  So I would assume that
if someone wants to assert a higher source for hebrew or any book of
law(s), that they may do so, but they are opening themselves into being
called flake.  Personally, I think it's poor form to inquire too closely
into the spritual semantics of this kind of interaction -- *because* 
the alternatives are that the person is quite serious, or quite flaky,
and I can't see why one would bother to be insulting by calling it 
into question.

It ain't provable but it ain't that important.  What's important to me
is to individually judge the value of the system.

Ergo, I would ask, is Suares' book *useful*?  If so, then why are you
worried about him being a flake?  If it is not useful, can you come
up with better criticism.  My feeling is that the person who implied
he was a flake (gods, was that josh?  There are so many >'s...) hadn't
read the book.

Or to phrase it another way (am I being defensive?) what's *wrong* or 
-- much less -- *unexpected* about an author on esoterica coming off
as a flake?

/* shava's get mushy in milk */
-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */