VL-IV pgs. 98/99: Postmodern Mysticism

[Simon Bryquer]

From: "rich" <richard.romeo at gmail.com>

> What also intrigues about the Kabbalah is artistic/spiritual strivings
> which essentially divorce it from its Jewish roots. i.e., can one
> really understand enough of it to "use" without a strong immersion in
> Jewish cultural traditions (however you may like to define that)

The answer is yes. Many scholars or students of Kabbalah are not Jewish. In
view of this one must clearly differentiate between the scholar/student and
the Kabbalah practitioner. To be a practical Kabbalist it is impossible to
do so without also practicing the Jewish tenets and be a devout adherent of
the religion, for the practice must accompany and be intricately involved in
the daily prayer, study of the Torah and meditations in additions to the
ongoing study of the Kabbalah itself.  As a Kabbalist once said regarding
the purely student/scholars of Kabbalah: 'They're like accountants, they
know where the gold is and how much there is, that is the good ones -- but
it's not their gold to use as they please.'

I might add that 90+% of Jews know very little of Kabbalah. If they do it's
just as a word without specific connections, not even that it's the mystic
portal of the Jewish religion.  As to the remaining percent those are mostly
in Chasidic orders/groups where it is mostly surrounded by old wives tales
and far fetched superstitions such as one must be at least 40 years old with
a belly full of the Talmud  and responsible for their daily bread. For most
Chasidic groups it is enough for the follower to think, they're not sure,
that their leader Rabbi knows and perhaps practices the Kabbalah.
Throughout the centuries the Jews, institutional and otherwise, were the
foremost opposition and even obstructionist to anyone studying the Kabbalah,
because they believed all the bad press of the Middle Ages and etc.  Also
throughout history the Jews were always were cautious about calling
attentions to themselves especially in areas that might be seen as powerful
magic and occult manipulations of existing powers.  Even  without saying
anything many a pogrom was initiated because of rumored practices of
Kabbalah and its imagined power.

> Before the war, Elie Wiesel said he was among three students studying
> it in Poland--the two other students Wiesel added eventually went mad
> in the process.
>

Well, I have reason to not believe Mr. Wiesel was echoing the typical
warning.  The Kabbalah is also known as the Sacred garden, in Hebrew Pardes,
which corresponds to the 4 level of interpretation and understanding of the
Torah or Pentateuch.  In Hebrew Pardes would be spelled PRDS corresponding
to P=Peshat the plain sense meaning of the text, R=Remez is the alluded
meanings and interpretation,D=Derach, homiletic and S=Sod the secret.  Each
one gives way to the other except Secret cannot be learned directly, only
when one has mastered the first 3 perhaps Sod might yield and reveals
itself.  But it depends on many additional elements.

Perhaps you're acquainted with this little tale of  the Sacred Garden and of
the four who entered Pardes: Ben Azai gazed and died, Ben Zoma gazed and
went insane, Asher became an apostate, only Rabi Akiva entered and exited in
peace,

Perhaps Eli Wiesel was thinking of this tale.


Anyway, there is a saying about Kabbalah, the Secret protects itself.


Simon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "rich" <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
To: "Simon Bryquer" <sbryquer at nyc.rr.com>
Cc: "Ray Easton" <kraimie at kraimie.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: VL-IV pgs. 98/99: Postmodern Mysticism


> that's pretty interesting. John Banville once said his ideal reader
> was someone who knew a little about a topic but not too much--maybe
> Joyce was really good at knowing where that line b/w informed and
> pretentious met. as you said, it's someone else's battle.
>
> What also intrigues about the Kabbalah is artistic/spiritual strivings
> which essentially divorce it from its Jewish roots. i.e., can one
> really understand enough of it to "use" without a strong immersion in
> Jewish cultural traditions (however you may like to define that)
>
> Before the war, Elie Wiesel said he was among three students studying
> it in Poland--the two other students Wiesel added eventually went mad
> in the process.
>
> I guess what I'm getting at is without that immersion can anyone even
> know where that line seperating informed and pretentious lay.
>
> as a friend once said--"those who know are not saying"
>
> rich
>
> On 1/22/09, Simon Bryquer <sbryquer at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> > Of course Joyce fan will fight like hell and never admit that Joyce
>> > could
>> ever be intellectually pretension. But its their fight not mine.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ray Easton" <kraimie at kraimie.net>
>> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: VL-IV pgs. 98/99: Postmodern Mysticism
>>
>>
>>> Robin Landseadel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My point is not hinging on how superficial or deep Pynchon's knowledge
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>> these matters is. His knowledge may well be superficial, as you [both]
>>>> are saying. My knowledge is superficial, as you both have pointed out.
>>>> Pynchon may well be skimming the surface of these topics, but that does
>>>> not eliminate the presence of these topics in his books.
>>>
>>> I've no idea, of course, what Pynchon's actual knowledge of any subject
>>> matter is.  But his knowledge of mathematics as displayed in AtD is
>>> certainly superficial.  In the case of the math, I've concluded that the
>>> details of the mathematics present in AtD have in fact no meaning at
>>> all -- that all that actually matters is that the characters are wrapped
>>> up in this activity.
>>> I lack the knowledge to have a good basis to draw the same conclusion
>>> about his use of the occult, but I wonder if this case is not similar.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>