It’s such a simple question. When people learn I’m on the trail of the father of kabbalah, they invariably ask: “Are you a kabbalist?” It should be easy to answer; but it’s not.
I can say I’m a mystic, sometimes; but many writers, lovers of literature, can say that. I can say I’m Jewish, and kabbalah is certainly the deep esoteric heart of Judaism, the final level of interpretation that ‘explains’ the unexplainable. By saying I’m Jewish I also define my kabbalah, place myself outside the New Age, the occult, the Christian versions.
Here’s a helpful hint: the spelling helps to give it away – cabala usually means Christian versions, coming from the Renaissance interest in Hebrew traditions; qabalah usual means the occult tradition, descended from mainly British spiritualists of the 19th century – although all versions ultimately derive from the Jewish tradition.
I can even say that, more or less, I hold to the kabbalistic worldview, although this varied in different Jewish eras and locations.
Sometimes, if I’m talking with someone who knows a little, especially a man of a certain age, they’ll remind me that women were not supposed to learn kabbalah, and even men had to wait until they were over 40. They usually don’t know that the injunction also included the requirement of having raised a family. Not to mention the fact that Isaac Luria, the source of modern kabbalah, died before his 35th birthday. Or that Tibetan Buddhism was also esoteric knowledge limited to a few devotees, but now almost everyone meditates.
Here’s a good place to begin, with a little history: the Hebrew word kabbalah derives from a root meaning ‘received’, and generally means ‘tradition’. The father of kabbalah is the 11th-century Rabbi Isaac the Blind, known as SagiNaHar, which means ‘filled with great light’ in Aramaic. He’s likely my ancestor; but that’s a story for another day.
(first of two parts)
By the way, the illustration (from a medieval Christian text in Latin called The Gates of Light) is believed to be a drawing of Isaac diagramming the Tree of Life.
Hi Kitty,
What a magical mystical journey you’re on.
I’m loving the photos. It’s mt kind of place to be in.
And the music is so inspirational.
Thank you for your blog.
Looking forward to more.
xoxo,
Judy
I love your essay, but thought to mention that your “K”, “C”, “Q” spelling hint, i.e. “kabbalah,” “cabala”, “qabalah”, is seriously problematic for non-English speakers and for the following reasons:
1. The common use of the “K” spelling is a fairly recent one, apparently introduced to create a consensus. However, it should be noted that many Rabbis, historians and other scholars have been using the “C” spelling when discussing what we might loosely term “Traditional Kabbalah.” In fact, to date there are still French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Swiss authors, amongst others, who are still using that spelling in their studies of mainstream “Kabbalah.” The suggestion that the “C” spelling be used exclusively to designate a Christian variant of Kabbalistic thinking, would create confusion as far as a veritable host of works are concerned, which were written over a period of more than a hundred years. Likewise the “K” spelling was and still is being used by scholars around the globe in their discussions of “Christian Kabbalah.”
2. The division of the Kabbalistic Tradition in this manner into the mentioned three categories is seriously problematic. It suggests a uniform pattern of thought to be prevailing within the “Jewish Mystical Tradition,” which is patently an inaccurate portrayal of the tradition over the thousand and more years of its existence.
Besides the obvious differences between, for example, the teachings of Isaac Luria and that of the author of the Zohar, marking distinct periods in the development of the Tradition, there are enormous differences and major disagreements between Kabbalists living in the same era. In fact, there are several absolutely distinct “Kabbalistic traditions” and diverse schools of thought which developed over the centuries, some of them considered to be heretical, yet many of the latter kind are now generically accepted as part of what mainstream religionists term “Kosher Kabbalah.”
3. As far as I am concerned the word “Kabbalah” is a Hebrew term with only one spelling. The transliteration of this word has been somewhat problematic due to the fact that the sound of its initial letter is represented by two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, i.e. Kaf and Kof. The latter letter is the one used in the word itself, and has been designated “C,” “K,” or “Q” by different authors, thus the variants in the spelling of the word in languages using the Latin alphabet. Trying to use those variants to denote three different approaches within the Tradition does not work for anybody using the Hebrew, Greek or Cyrillic alphabet. Thus such usage cannot be universal.
Settling for one common spelling, i.e. “Kabbalah,” and then clearly indicating a specific subsidiary of this tradition under discussion—Ecstatic Kabbalah, Theurgic Kabbalah, Prophetic Kabbalah, Lurianic Kabbalah, Christian Kabbalah, Hermetic Kabbalah, etc., is far more useful and accurate. Besides, there is in truth only one “Kabbalah,” the teachings of which are wielded in as many ways as there are people to invent them from their personal perspectives. Provided the core principles and doctrines of the tradition are understood and upheld intact, there can be an infinite number of variant interpretations.
Hi Jacobus. I’m delighted you loved my post. Thanks for your informed and thoughtful comments on my aside about the various spellings of the word in English.
I don’t disagree with your important distinctions, and I certainly would never want to imply that anything in the Jewish tradition is monolithic or uni-dimensional, especially not in the case of kabbalah. I intended my line about the variety of Jewish kabbalistic worldviews to communicate that. A tradition founded, at least since the rabbinic revolution, on interpretation and reinterpretation of text, where every page of Talmud includes different commentators from different historical eras, is not a tradition with one easily-determined literal ‘truth.’
At the same time, I think it is important to note certain foundational realities — Kabbalistic teachings first emerged within the Jewish world. If there are a multiplicity of approaches and traditions with that Jewish Kabbalah, which is not surprising in a span of at least a millennium within a tradition that reveres interpretation, it is nevertheless true that these various traditions exist within a framework of Jewish text and worldview.
Many Christian thinkers, especially in the Renaissance, were interested in the parallels and correspondences between Kabbalah, which they learned from Jewish teachers, and the Western mystery teachings, especially in the Hermetic tradition. Their resulting synthesis (perhaps its most popular manifestation being the Tarot deck) is different from the various forms of Jewish Kabbalah in important ways.
While in the end all mystical paths and spiritual traditions lead to the same place, beyond articulation, and outside time and place, there are nevertheless different ways of getting to that unity, and on the journey those nuances can lead to important different byways.
It seems to me essential to honour those distinctions, as well as remaining open to the beauty and particular truth of each and all, while avoiding undue and unacknowledged appropriation.
The spelling differences I noted, while of necessity imprecise, can provide a handy preliminary guide to some critical distinctions, at least in the contemporary North American scene. Your comment about other languages is of course spot on.
Finally, I believe we are in a new era of integration of esoteric and mystical teachings much like the Italian Renaissance; any new synthesis that emerges this time will, I believe, include Eastern traditions.
l’shalom