I want to make it clear that I am a STUDENT of the Zohar, not a teacher of it. These are notes that I take in the course of my own study, which at this point is largely a review. I offer these notes to you. Kind of like "Cliff's Notes," only it's Don's Notes.
So who the hell am I, to be doing this? Good question, which I would ask, myself. I can't really explain it, and my guidance did not.
Why, then, am I doing it? I'm supposedly not even a Jew, although it's complicated. My Jacobson ancestors were originally Jews (is that something that can be changed?). I have a Jewish "DNA-cousin" in the Ukraine. I had a reincarnational flash at the age of five, which I now recognize as Jewish. My friend Yakov told me that I was one of the "Lost sheep from the House of Israel" mentioned (twice) in the Gospel of Matthew. He would know better than I, and others have said as much.
The truth is that I have felt more Jewish than Christian since 1964, which is when I started studying Jewish mysticism, including the basic principles underlying the Zohar. I came under the spell of Martin Buber, and by 1965 had read his book about the Baal Shem Tov and both volumes of the Tales of the Hasidim. In that year I also came under the influence of Chabad, through a bearded ex-yeshivnik named John Blank (not the one in Portland, whom I also know), and, eventually, through Shlomo Carlebach.
I do not believe there are any accidents in this life. All of these experiences left their mark on me, a mark that has proved to be permanent.
But other marks have been left on me, by St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Ávila, by Shankara and Lalla, by Ramana and Ramakrishna. Those influences have already aided my study of the Zohar. After all, "Truth is One; Many are the Names."
But will I have time to deal with the five-volume monstrosity on my bookshelf? It seems unlikely, but let's get started.
The Zohar deals with the question of divine transcendence vs. immanence in unique and, let's face it, often contradictory ways. I would say that the question is never really settled. In other words, it's a mystery, and that's OK. We don't have to know everything or have all the answers, as long as we have reverence and respect.
The waters start to get murky, at least for me, when we talk about the Zoharic "flowings out" or emanations that bring about the four "universes" of Atsiluth (Emanation), Beriah (Creation), Yetsirah (Formation), and Asiah (Action). Do they correspond to the "planes" or "levels" of our multidimensional being? I don't yet know, but the "flowings out" remind me of the series of vibrational "expansions" in Kashmiri Shaivism, and they have the same purpose: to make the Transcendent Immanent. What could Mosés de Leon have known about Kashmiri Shaivism? Not much, I would think, but all of this knowledge comes, ultimately, from the same Source.
And how do the ten (in regular Kabbalah) or eleven (in Lurianic Kabbalah) "Sephiroth" fit into them? Originally they were Kether (Crown), Chokmah (Wisdom), Binah (Understanding), Chesed (Mercy), Geburah (Strength or Severity), Tiphereth (Beauty), Netzach (Victory), Hod (Glory), Yesod (Foundation or Base), and Malkuth (Kingdom). But in Isaac Luria's system, which has dominated Chasidic thinking since the eighteenth century, another is added: Da'ath דַעַת (Knowledge), which is placed between Chokmah and Binah, because it is the product of them. Indeed, the Hebrew word דַעַת can have all three meanings: knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Interestingly, Chabad is an acronym for Chokmah, Binah, and Da'ath. Not a surprise, since its roots are in Chasidism, especially that of Lubavitch. Obviously, their Kabbalah is Lurianic.
Text and image Copyright © 2020 by Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler.
No comments:
Post a Comment