Merkavah Mysticism

[David Clapper]

Hi y'all,

One of my reasons for being very interested in astral projection is that early post-biblical Jewish mysticism has a number of "mysterious" descriptions of ascents to heaven. I have developed a few theories of what this all entails (one of which involves the effect one's culture and upbringing has on the type of experiences one has while out of body), and want very much to test this out for myself instead of being restricted to the realms of theory. So apart from my own nascent efforts to project astrally, I was wondering if anyone had already tried these out, or is interested in trying to follow the route traced out in the Heichalot texts.

In the Zohar, the Heichalot, "Chambers", are described as the seven chambers of light perceived by the mystic during prayer, or by a righteous person as his soul passes away from this world and ascends on high (Zohar I, 38a-45b and Zohar II, 244b-268b).


Here is an example of an early (i.e. approx 1000 years before the Zohar was published) Heichalot text.

Rabbi Ishmael said: How beloved is Israel before the Holy, Blessed One! Even more than the ministering angels! For [when] the angels want to recite songs first, before making, for instance, mountains of fire or hills of flame, the Holy, Blessed One says to them, 'Be silent, until I have listened to the songs and praises, prayers and pleasant melodies of Israel' as it is written, 'When the morning stars sang together' (Job 38:7)--this [refers to Israel--'and all the sons of God shouted for joy' (Job 38:7)--this refers to the ministering angels. When all the ministering angels and all the angels of the firmament hear the sound of the songs and praises that Israel sings below, they immediately open [their mouths and] in a loud voice say 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory' (Isaiah 6:3).

When the time arrives for the angels to sing [a song] and melody, the angel Shmu''el, the great, honoured and awesome prince stands at the windows of the lower firmament to listen intently to the sound of the songs, praises and melodies that arise from the synagogues and study houses, and lets the children of the firmament and the holy creatures listen. And when he has heard and has let every firmament hear, immediately countless classes of camps and armies of angels descend into the midst of the rivers of fire and the rivers of flame, and immerse themselves seven times, and examine themselves in the fire three hundred and sixty five times, in accordance [with the fact that] they are appointed to [do] worldly work and descend each day to bring peace to the world. And when the time of song arrives, they ascend to the firmament and purify themselves in the fire. But do angels require immersion? [Certainly not! But] because of the smell of those born of woman, who are masters of uncleanness and fluxes, they therefore immerse themselves in fire. Then they go like the angels of the seventh heaven (?).

After this they call to each other and talk to each other, and ascend from the rivers of fire with each others permission, and make themselves like light and like the most radiant lightning. Then they ascend by a ladder of fire, until they reach the armies of the seventh heaven, the pure chashmal(?), the holy creatures, the wheels of the chariot, the high and exalted throne of glory. Immediately they stand in awe and reverence, in fear and humility, and cover their faces with their wings in order not to look upon the form of God sitting on the chariot. Then they stand in classes of thousands upon thousands, many myriads, and hosts of hosts beyond number before the throne of the glory. And at that moment, the Holy Blessed One sits on the throne of glory filling the whole world, as it says, The whole world is full of His glory (Isaiah 6:3). Even the holy creatures prepare and sanctify themselves, with each one of the million crowns of [different] types of light on their heads, dressed in garments of light, and with their faces wrapped in lightning, while the Holy Blessed One [turns] His face from the holy creatures.

Then the 'wheels' of beauty, the cherubim of glory, and the holy creatures, sanctify, purify, clothe and wrap themselves more because the chariot is in front of them, the throne of glory is above their heads, and the Shechinah is high above them, and the rivers of fire are passing between them. Therefore they prepare, brighten and purify themselves with light seventy times, and then all of them stand in purity and holiness and recite songs, praises, melodies, exaltations, adulations, acclamations, and paeans, with [one] voice, one speech, one knowledge, and one melody.

And not only this, but some of these million myriads of ministering angels also fall into the burning rivers of fire, and are burnt up. Why? Because anyone who precedes or follows in song is immediately burnt, while even the holy creatures contain neither 'before' nor 'after' since their standing, 'planting', and shining are all done in unison. They direct the four legs of the throne, each leg corresponding to another, each wheel corresponding to another, each creature corresponding to another, each cherub corresponding to another, and each melody corresponding to another. Then they open their mouths in song, in holiness and purity, with a 'still small voice' [I Kings 19:12], as it is said, 'and after the earthquake...a still small voice', and they raise the chariot with the sound of songs and praises.

At that moment, holy beings sanctify themselves, pure beings offer praise, angelic beings exult, wheels laud, creatures and angels sing and divide into three classes of millions and myriads, and say, Holy, holy, holy. One class says 'Holy' and falls on its face; [then another class says 'Holy, holy' and falls on its face;] and then another class says 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts'. The holy creatures from under the throne respond and say 'Blessed is the glory of the Lord from its place' (Ezekiel 3:12) because the Shechinah is in every place. In the future, the Shechinah will return to its place, to the house of the Holy of Holies, and will say, 'Blessed is the glory of the Lord from its place'....

from Seder Rabbah

[daem0n]

well, it is spontaneus combustion when 3 dimensional body tried to ascend into 4d without 4d body utilising aforementioned merkaba

[David Clapper]

It's pretty dramatic isn't it? The combustion could be seen as transformation and purification (burning away the dross). Nothing I've read in the published experiences of modern OOBE'ers describes this. Have you been through something similar?

[daem0n]

well, it is painful death, because of the aforementioned dross
you cannot ascend with dross, you will just leave everything that contains dross (and when it is head the whole point of it ceases, doesn't it)
and this concerns physical body, not oobe, i had such experience within my ancestry, not fun
if you want good story about oobe check out
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10506
here you have drama
i also had my share of dramas, all of them thanks to my stupidity, drama is NOT a good sign, true progress is gradual (well, the one exception being enlightment experiences)

[Beth]

Dear David,

Nice to hear from you.  I hope you are doing well and are fruitful in your labors.   The following is what I can offer regarding your question...and most of it you may already know....

First, the Semitic word "merkabah" is based upon the verb "to ride, or to mount" upon which is built the noun "chariot" or "merkabah."  

There is however, another meaning for "merkabah" – and that is "from entering the fiery vision."  I think this latter meaning is more in keeping with what these ancient texts are relating rather than a chariot per se.  (BTW: "chasmal" is indicative of a "shining substance" or some kind of visually apparent "brilliance.")    

I will say that yes, it is certainly possible for one to have a related experience, and in variant ways from the details of the Hekhalot literature (which derives its name from the "palaces" or "temples" that appear in the visions.)  

With any of the ancient texts that you may be studying, be very careful reading them literally.  If I may suggest, abstract out the main themes, such as "light," "wind," certain sounds like the "sound of angels wings," as well as the related physical sensations, and allow the rest of the details to be filled in with your own conscious impressions (from the subconscious data you acquired that passed through your experiential filters upon reentry.)  

These ancient texts were written by mystics that lived in a very different world with a very different belief structure.  They lived in a time when "chariots" were the fastest mode of transportation; "palaces" were the highest and best places to live, and so forth and so on...

I have no doubt that outside of the cultural details, whatever those mystics experienced ... we too can experience as well.  It all depends upon what path you are willing to walk.  Even though I do not take the details literally, the strong language used in the Hekhalot literature was not without reason.  The path of the Merkabah Mystic is not for the faint hearted...it is written that only the purest and most righteous -- the zadiq -- are even offered the experience, and subsequently a great deal is expected of such a person.  

R. Aquiba is thought to be one of the writers of these texts, as well as a character in the "four rabbis and the pardes" aggadah. It is said that out of the four, only Aquiba "ascended" and "descended" in peace.  The name "Aquiba" can carry the meaning "I shall enter the fire."  So, bottom line, you have to be willing to pay a price for the privilege of the vision...  

I have a lot more to add on this topic, but this is enough for now...

Peace,
Beth

[David Clapper]

Peace Beth,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote

There is however, another meaning for "merkabah" – and that is "from entering the fiery vision."

. What is your source for this interpretation?

I have been reading a book by Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok (founder of Yeshivat Bnei Nevi'im) called "Sefer LeHagid HaEmet", in which he discusses the descent of the four rabbis into the Merkabah. He explains Akiva's warning as one not to mistake visions for reality. Aher became a dualist because he saw Metraton standing next to the Holy One and assumed there were two. Ben Zoma couldn't integrate his experience with his physical consciousness and went mad, and Ben Azzai simply left his body for good. He explains that the four Rabbis were actually making an attempt to get the Messiah to come in view of the Roman oppression. The attempt was a failure. Akiva came back hale and hearty (thinking he had succeeded) and the "mistook" Bar Kochba for the messiah. In the end he suffered for his presumption as well.

I must admit, taking due heed of all the warnings, I would dearly love to hear the Bat Kol and to see the halls of marble. Another plan is to travel back to Sinai to experience the giving of the Torah. And does the Angel Metatron really exist? I wonder though to what extent you can "conjure" up such experiences. Your unconscious is highly influenced by your cultural milieu. I have also learned that my unconscious has its own agenda and I usually end up having the experiences I was meant to have instead of the ones I consciously wanted.

Anyway, to the extent I make progress in this direction I shall, in due course, submit my findings. I was merely interested if anyone else had tried this path out.

Kind regards,

David

[Beth]

Dear David,

Hello there!  You asked for my source on an additional meaning of "Merkabah."  Once again, you may know some of this already, so pardon if I start with a very basic introductory explanation.

Semitic words are all built from 3-letter (consonant) roots where letters are added in prefix, suffix, or infix to form verbs, regular nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, etc.  Ancient Hebrew also did not have vowels as do other languages, and it would not be until the 600-800's of the current era that the Masoretic vowel pointing system would be created.  So essentially, the entire Semitic vocabulary as we find it in the bible and the earliest rabbinical literature has been created through numerous combinations of these consonantal roots, and as such there are many words that are related to more than one verb--some of which are totally unsuspected!  

For example, the syllables of the noun "Chariot" break down in the following way:

M=preposition prefix "of or from"
RKB=verb "to ride" or "to mount"

In combination, the Semitic word for "Chariot" is m--rkabah---a noun built upon the verb rakab which means "to mount or to ride."  

Since different combinations of consonant roots with prefixes, suffixes and infixes are all used throughout the language to create the vocabulary, as long as the syllables are accurately assigned to the consonants involved, then there are many possible word combinations that can be just as legitimate as any other.  Granted, scriptural references and rabbincal use are always important to use as supporting evidence, but when other traditional literary keys are used such as gematria, then the rules change dramatically.  It is essentially translator's choice.

I mentioned that merkabah can also mean "from entering the firey/burning vision" because it is just as legitimate as any other combination.  This is how this phrase is created:

M=preposition "of" or "from"
Rah=verb "to see" "to envision" or as a noun "vision"
Kuh=verb "to burn" or the noun "burning" or "fiery"
Bah=verb "to enter"

Hence, "of/from entering the firey/burning vision" or "from entering the vision of fire."  

I also made mention of this possibility because it is just as possible to experience a "firey vision" as it is to experience a "chariot."  Since both of these are of a visionary nature, then any of the possible combinations could be the case.  In other words, you would not call a vision of say a "sandstorm" a merkabah, because the word/phrase for a sandstorm would be a different root combination--but a "chariot" or "fire" would be appropriate.

As to the talmudic story of the four rabbi's this too is open to interpretation---and has been interpreted a number of different ways through the centuries.  Check out some of the other possible meanings of the story to get an idea of how--just about everything--in this ancient material has been treated in Judaism as "open to interpretation."  

Do I think that you or I could actually have the same visions as these ancient rabbis--or actually visit Sinai at the time that the law was being given??? Or even meet Metatron? My immediate answer is No.  We cannot. First, I think the ancients were writing with heavy metaphorical language and it is dangerous (or just a waste of time) to think of them in a literal sense.  Moreover, Merkabah Mysticism is very much a language based mysticism where "combining the letters" are essential to obtaining the visions, and may actually mean that the visions are linguistic in nature and as such tell a story of their own.  In other words, it would be through combining the letters that we would be able to understand the visions.  Second, visions and astral experiences are highly individualized, and as such (like you said) we see and experience those things that we are supposed to see and experience.  

Now, is it possible to experience the chariot or go to Sinai for the giving of the Law, or to meet Metatron??  Sure it is possible but that does not mean that it is necessarily something that can ever be repeated, let alone shared by a majority of people.  If you find that you have had such a vision, it would be your personal vision to behold and to cherish.

Oh, and one more thing.  Qol can be specific such as an "oral teaching" but can also be more general as a bath qol which would be an inner voice that originates in the divine realm or from the Holy Spirit: Bath meaning "inner" and Qol meaning "sound" or "voice."  

If you want to know more about the four rabbis and the halls of marble, etc., there are many different interpretations and/or rabbincal commentaries to be studied.  And yes, please keep me posted on your progress and your experiences.  

Peace,
Beth

[David Clapper]

Peace Beth,

M=preposition "of" or "from"
Rah=verb "to see" "to envision" or as a noun "vision"
Kuh=verb "to burn" or the noun "burning" or "fiery"
Bah=verb "to enter"

I like that.

First, I think the ancients were writing with heavy metaphorical language and it is dangerous (or just a waste of time) to think of them in a literal sense.

One of the reasons I became interested in astral projection was to ground all the things you can read (and you'll admit there is a lot) in terms of experience, in order to gain a measure of intellectual security (a psychological need). To the extent that consciousness is an individual affair, I agree that what you experience is highly individualised. However, I am not so sure of the extent to which consciousness is individualised. It may be possible to tune into some shared mental structure which allows you to "download" the absolute meaning of a symbol (and good old religious me does believe that absolute meaning exists). Granted, your own mind will try to turn that into what it will. But who knows, maybe the override will be sufficient to change your concepts in a flash. Another possibility is that the downloaded kernel in your unconscious will transform your conceptualisation in a gradual way. I'm not convinced that a literal approach is necessarily dangerous or useless. A universal symbol would have to be taken literally. And the greater the extent to which it reflects a universal truth, the more literally you would have to take it.

For example:
Did the giving of the Torah at Sinai actually occur on the physical plane? What was the absolute meaning hidden within the shell (klippah) of this symbol? A lot has been written on this Kabbalistically, but which of the various interpretations approaches the truth? Imagine I do experience Sinai in a literal sense while travelling in the astral (or elsewhere). Maybe it's a "mindblowing" experience which radically changes my life, and, much to my wife and children's distress I start walking around in a toga, my beard turns snowy white, and, wielding a large walking stick (a la Cecille B. de Mille), I call the Children of Israel to repent for the end is nigh. Alternatively, I wake up the next morning with a strong intuitive "gut" feeling of what the significance of the symbol of Sinai is. This feeling grows in me and, nine months later, I give birth to a beautiful baby idea. To everyone else my idea is relative (forgive the pun   ), but to me I now "know" what the truth is, it is absolute. Where I'm speculating is my assumption that the symbol of Sinai does contain a lot of absolute truth in it. It may well be that I come back with the feeling of it all having been a fraud. But then I will at least "know" that for sure.

And maybe at the end of all my "knowings", gradually transforming my consciousness, I reach the ultimate "knowing" (the world of the Throne). My point is that I think these literal symbols have value.[/i]

[Beth]

Dear David,

You wrote:

My point is that I think these literal symbols have value.

Of course symbols have value.  What I question is your use of the term "literal" in conjunction with "symbol."  Symbols are always arbitrary and conventional.  Symbols provide for likeness or similarity, never what something "literally" is.  

From Websters for "Symbol":
1 : an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : CREED
2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance;  especially   : a visible sign of something invisible *the lion is a symbol of courage*
3 : an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities
4 : an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind that has been repressed *phallic symbols*
5 : an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the capacity to excite or objectify a response

I list these meanings to show that even the word "symbol" has various meanings, depending upon the context.  I hope you do not think I am splitting hairs here, but a "symbol" by its very nature is something that is representative of something else.  Take the "cross" for example:  a cross is a symbol that is found in many different cultures, but carries different meanings for some, and somewhat similar meanings for others. BUT--the very shape of a cross has the potential to elicit certain meanings that a circle, for example, cannot.  My point is that "symbols taken literally" is technically impossible in a universal sense, e.g., one the one hand, a vision of being at a crossroad could "symbolically" mean the same as a "literal cross" and on the other hand, an Egyptian in 2,000 bce would have a very different idea of what a cross symbolizes than would a 21st century Christian.  

Jung is the best resource to fully understand universal symbolism in his treatment of archetypes.   There are many different ways in which the masculine, the feminine, and the trickster, for example, can manifest themselves.  Your example of Mt Sinai could be echoed with Mt Olympus in Greek Myth as the place where the gods dwell--both being symbols of the same idea.  

As to your description of an astral experience where you actually go to Sinai, etc., this is certainly possible, but do not be too surprised if there is a bit of "bleed-through" of what you see there....for example, you may be there talking with God and receiving the law, and all of the sudden a Dominoes Pizza Delivery truck pulls up and you are propelled into a birthday party for a nine year old!  In other words, the astral realms can be very unpredictable, and to have certain expectations may lead to certain disappointment.  

I do wish you all the best in your journey, both here and there.  Just don't stop seeking....

Peace,
Beth

[David Clapper]

Hi Beth,

I understand that "literal symbols" sounds like a contradiction in terms, but perhaps what I mean could better put as "taking symbols seriously". So in essence we are in agreement (I think). We cannot be conscious without symbols and, the way I look at things, we don't perceive anything else, either in this world or the next. The question is how to deal with them. To quote Daniel Matt in "The Essential Kabbalah",

The Kabbalists grew adept at walking the tightrope between blind fundamentalism and mystical anarchy, though a number of them lost their balance and fell into one extreme or the other

In his book "Homo Ludens", the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga speaks of a child playing a game which, while he is playing it, is as real as anything else. However, the child is nevertheless still aware somewhere in his mind that it is "just" a game.

In Jewish tradition, Merkavah mysticism is derived from Ezekial's vision of the Chariot. To quote Daniel Matt again,

An entire literature developed recounting the visionary exploits of those who followed in Ezekial's footsteps, among them some of the leading figures of rabbinic Judaism

While aware that what they saw was the mind's attempt to give form to the formless, there was, nevertheless, an acceptance of the vocabulary of symbols they were experiencing. And that is the religious context.

My original question in starting this thread was intended to find out if anyone still alive has followed their footsteps and how they interpreted their experiences, in a modern context.

It may turn out that I am the first one to do this (which I find hard to believe). Thank you for wishing me well on my journey!

Shalom alayich,

David

[mercuriophilus]

Dear David and Beth,

Thank you for the interesting and somewhat lively discussion in this thread so far. Reading your posts has given me several fun ideas to ponder.

I hope my question isn't too far off topic, but here goes:

In accord with David, I feel that the symbols and experiences as recorded in the Merkabah tradition are valuable and to be taken seriously. I know from my own experiences that astral/mystical events can be very hard to describe in words. Having said that, and I'm about to make an assumption here, I feel that the writers of the Heichalot literature, et al., were making a serious attempt to capture in words the doubtlessly miraculous and "mind-blowing" images and sensations encountered on their 'journeys.' However, other motivations (e.g. political, poetic, personal agenda) can't be discounted.

I also agree with Beth, in that interpreting symbols and experiences from a culture or tradition distantly removed from our contemporary associative contexts can be dangerous if not futile.  But, that really shouldn't stop us from trying, eh?  

..um, so now, to my question:

David wrote:

I have been reading a book by Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok (founder of Yeshivat Bnei Nevi'im) called "Sefer LeHagid HaEmet", in which he discusses the descent of the four rabbis into the Merkabah.

I've been studying Jewish mysticism for a number of years now, but I am by no means an expert.  I have encountered and pondered the phrase "descend to the Merkabah" and its like on several occasions. This usage seems very odd to me.  It seems that there is an intentional inversion of the the standard and ubiquitous orientational metaphor up is good::heaven is up in that what we read here in the quoted phrase is Merkabah is down. I say 'intentional' because as above I believe the writers in question choose their language and symbols carefully.  So...what could be going on here?

What do you think guys?

Vale,
Whitt

P.S.   This is my very first post, so be gentle with me.  K?    

[David Clapper]

Welcome to the discussion Whitt,

I agree with you that the early Merkavah Mystics chose their language very carefully. Which is why, in view of the repeated (= shared = objective) experimentation, I feel justified in treating their symbology "literally"; at any rate, as literally as I would physical reality.

To add more question marks to your question: in his essay on Merkavah mysticism and gnosticism, Gershom G. Scholem notes that the earliest Merkavah mystics wrote of an "ascent" to the Merkavah, it was only around 500 AD that the terminology changed to "descent".  In the words of a favourite reggae artist of mine "wha 'appen?". I don't know. I feel these kinds of questions can only be answered through experience. It's like astral archaeology to retrace the steps of these mystics. Hopefully one day I'll be able to answer you. At present I have yet to even become conscious in my real-time body (I am on day 34 of MAP), although I have had a few near misses. One idea I have is that the descent refers to the descent into a trance, where (according to MAP) you keeping visualising/feeling yourself descending with some image or another.

Another interesting detail is the posture adopted by the Merkavah Mystics, bent over forwards with their head on their knees. Personally my stomach gets in the way, so I'll need someone younger and fitter to test that one out

[Beth]

Dear David and Whitt (welcome!)

Because I have no doubt that a large part of the mystical tradition that we are discussing was in fact a language-based mysticism, and that the ancient and medieval Jews were genii with their use of language, it is now a matter of course for me to turn to their language first in my search for meaning of their written words.  

The seeming contradiction between the words ascending and descending and their use by these mystics is without doubt puzzling.  I too thought the same as you David only a few years ago, that descending was that sense of moving downward into trance that commonly occurs immediately prior to an out of body experience--in which I then ascended.  That certainly made sense to me at the time, satisfying both my personal experience as well as my need to understand these mystic's use of the terms.  But I have also ascended through the astral and upon entering an astral plane I first appeared there from above and then descended down into the environment of that plane.  This immediately gave me another possible meaning of "descend" to contemplate and if I remember correctly, this happened just about the time I had made up my mind that descending was that sensation of moving into the trance state.  

I feel it is important to share with you that having my astral experiences in conjunction with studying this mystical tradition has been quite elusive—e.g., as soon as I think I have something figured out, the bar is raised or the rules seem to change and I find that I must learn yet another meaning for what I seek.  This elusive pursuit agrees with the material that we use to study this tradition and the more I know about these mystics, the less this surprises me!  

Because I turn to their language for understanding, I will offer this word study for your contemplation:

The Semitic word "ascend" is alah ('lh / ayin-lamed-hey) which finds it root with al ('l / ayin-lamed) and means "highest" or "aloft" and is used as el "God" or "Most High."  But this same word is also a primary preposition that means "above, over, upon and against" as well as the noun ol or owl ('l / ayin-lamed) which means "yoke" (as something imposed upon the neck.) Other words that are built upon this root are:  


ulla ('l' / ayin-lamed-aleph) which means "burden"
alah ('lh / ayin-lamed-hey) in another sense of "to ascend" or "to be high" "to carry up" or "to lift" in the context of a "burnt offering" but this same word is also used in the more mundane context of "climbing stairs."  With the addition of a vav ('lwh / ayin-lamed-vav-hey) we find alvah with the very different meaning of "perverseness" or "iniquity."  

When the vav and hey are replaced with a yod, we find illay ('lay / ayin-lamed-yod) returning us once again to "supreme god" or "most high."  By placing a hey at the end of illay (ayin-lamed-yod-hey) we find "lofty" "sky" or "upper chamber."  This is the way that the Semitic langauge works, in that many shades of meaning can be created through the use of three-consonant-roots and only through combining these roots with other letters (especially yod, hey and vav) that we can discover the fullness of a word's meaning.  

Now, the Semitic word for "descend" is yared (yod-reish-dalet,) the same word as the proper noun Jordan and is built upon the root yara/yarah which means "to flow downward" as water/rain, or "to throw/shoot" as with an arrow.  Yara is also the root of morah which means "teacher" and Torah which means "direction" or "instruction" and is commonly known to us as The Law.  Now, interestingly enough, yara is also the same word that means "to fear" as used in the Commandment, "You shall fear the Lord thy God..." and could also be translated to mean "reverence" changing the tone of the commandment to "You shall revere the Lord thy God..."

As you can see, it is not that easy to determine what these ancient mystics were actually communicating.  I do know that they used language to the maximum capability and just because we can translate the words descend and ascend and find certain meaning in our own language and our own experiences, does not mean that some of these other meanings were not the actual intended meanings woven into an esoteric narrative sequence.   In other words, by taking these words literally we may be missing the whole point (which in Greek is hamartia and the word for "sin" as well as "missing the mark" as in shooting an arrow.) Moreover, the understanding that we have of needing first to ascend in order to descend to the Merkabah could also mean, just to name three possible meanings, that we should make the highest god the goal of our instruction, or more generally we must be lifted up in our instruction or even that it is by living in a world of iniquity that we must learn to revere God.  

Just some things to ponder...

Peace,
Beth

[David Clapper]

Dear Beth,

Thank you for sharing your experiences trying to figure out what ‘descent into the Merkavah' means. I find your experience most interesting, however elusive. It is the sort of input I was looking for when I started this thread. I truly hope I too will be able to add something useful to this discussion one day.

While we are on the subject of linguistics (I am restricted to Hebrew and Aramaic I'm afraid), one of the meanings of the root yud-reysh-dalet is “humbling” (viz Genesis 27:40). Perhaps “laredet” in this sense means to annihilate the ego (“bitul haYesh”). The Ba’al Shem Tov was renowned for his “trips” to heaven and “bitul haYesh” forms a major part of the Chassidic mystical path. Perhaps the tradition is not so lost after all? Perhaps the world of the Merkavah Mystics is not so far away as we may think?

One last question, while out of the body, have you tried to experience any of the symbols described in the Heichalot literature?

Kind regards,

David

[Beth]

Dear David,

I must go run some errands, but for now I will answer your last question first.  You asked:

while out of the body, have you tried to experience any of the symbols described in the Heichalot literature?

I have never been successful at "trying" to come out of my body.  Whenever I have "tried" I am met with disappointment...

The many experiences I have had, have all been spontaneous and the details of the events have been a total surprise.  I will say that it has been during my years of study that these experiences have come, but I have not pre-programmed anything in particular to occur.  While this may certainly be possible, all of the experiences I have been blessed with have "just happened."

I will respond to the other questions later this evening, okay?

Peace,
Beth

[Beth]

Dear David,

While we are on the subject of linguistics (I am restricted to Hebrew and Aramaic I'm afraid), one of the meanings of the root yud-reysh-dalet is "humbling" (viz Genesis 27:40).

Well.....No...that is incorrect.....  
 
The word that you are referring to in Genesis 27:40 (that I assume in your text has been translated as "humbled"??) is actually ol (aiyn-lamed) the word for "yoke" which is related to the root of "to ascend" which I mentioned above.  

Perhaps "laredet" in this sense means to annihilate the ego ("bitul haYesh").

Perhaps you are referring to a different verse than Gen 27:40?  The word laredet (assuming--lamed-yod-reish-dalet is the root) could be "descend" with lamed serving as the preposition "to" or "toward" as in "to descend" or "toward descension."  

Now if the spelling is actually LRDT (lamed-reish-dalet-tav) then you have a very different word and its meaning would be "toward submission" from the root RDD "to subdue" which actually matches better with "humbling" than does "to descend."

Maybe because you misquoted your verse I have given you unnecessary info, but just in case you hold that everything happens for a reason, then there is a reason for this as well.

The Ba'al Shem Tov was renowned for his "trips" to heaven and "bitul haYesh" forms a major part of the Chassidic mystical path.

While I have certainly read many of the tales of the Baal Shem Tov--gotta love him!--I have not studied his work, or Hasidism in any academic sense.  My main focus has been on the ancient traditions of Greece, Judaism and Christianity, and that has been more than enough to keep me busy for years now (and will probably continue to do so for many more to come!)  

Perhaps the tradition is not so lost after all? Perhaps the world of the Merkavah Mystics is not so far away as we may think?

I never said it was far away, I only caution you not to jump to premature conclusions (e.g., cut down those shoots too soon!) and moreover, whatever it is that you seek may not be quite what you expect to find!

Peace,
Beth

[David Clapper]

Peace Beth,

I am not working from a translation, I am reading the Hebrew (Israeli Hebrew is my mother tongue, but I was educated in a Yeshiva) and the word I am referring to is “tareed” which is the future tense of the infinitive “Laredet”. I’m sure you are aware that ‘yud’ is a so-called weak letter which drops away in some forms . This sentence (Genesis 27:40) has been interpreted in many ways. I will use a Rashi-derived translation here as my starting point:

By your sword you shall live, but your brother you shall serve; yet it shall be that when you will be aggrieved (tareed), you may remove his yoke from upon your neck.

Rashi bases his translation on a similar verse in Psalms, namely Psalms 55:3, “Areed b’seechee”. There is a cognate root Reysh-Vav-Dalet which also denotes complaint, and according to Ibn-Ezra this may have also have prompted Rashi to opt for this interpretation (at least according to the Tur). Commentators such as Rashbah and Sforno agree with Rashi’s interpretation of suffering. Ibn Ezra himself translates “tareed” as deriving from the root Reysh-Dalet-Vav, to rule (viz I Kings 5:4). Radak and Ralbag agree with him. In all these cases, the idea is that this verse implies that Esau will be able to remove the yoke when Israel sins.

In the traditional Jewish view, Esau (Esau) is the progenitor of Edom (Rome), the (Jewish) archetype of world domination through violence. This context is my context (I grew up in a religious Jewish family).  To sidetrack briefly, according to the Zohar, the channel of God’s “goodness” to this world is disrupted when man sins because this distorts the sefirot. By doing mitzvot(good deeds=cleaving to God) man corrects the blemishes (tikkun) which allow more of the goodness to reach this world. Genesis 27:40 can be thus read to mean that when man sins, violence prevails. Violence can be seen as belonging to our “animal” nature, cleaving to God as belonging to our spiritual nature. In this world, the intention is that both are equal partners in carrying out God’s will (for without the body, the spirit has no “tool” with which to act). However, the animal must submit to the spiritual.

With this as context, I would like to translate the word “tareed” as “humbled” with the idea that Esau’s strength of sword and his world-conquest are for the ultimate purpose of his final submission to Jacob in acknowledgment that the sword is the servant of the spirit. Esau’s greatest hope is “ca’asher tareed”, when you humble yourself to Jacob by submitting yourself to his ideals, then you will no longer be subservient to him.

By the way, this sentence can also be interpreted in a prophetic sense, referring to the reign of Jehoram when Edom revolted, throwing off the yoke that had been placed on them by King David.

I think that a purely linguistic approach to the biblical texts (and the Heichalot literature) can be very misleading (if not futile) if you don’t have a general context in which to orient your analysis. I do not believe the modern orthodox/Chassidic Jewish context is so far removed from the Heichalot mystics as to make attempts to interpret the texts through experience futile. An early Christian context, or Gnostic or even Hermetic context is also fine, as long as it's a context. I don't think a secular context counts though. Others may of course differ in their opinion. That’s OK   . It seems to me that you are too focused on the language per se (if I am wrong and you do have a context within which you are translating, please forgive me for thinking this). In addition to my regular work, I also do translations (from Dutch to English). Even with secular texts, which are very modern i.e. less far-removed in time, understanding the context is essential to translating accurately. It’s one of the reasons computers still cannot translate properly.

And as to not finding what I expect, who knows? I'm not even sure I know what I am expecting!

Peace,

David

[Eol007]

Facinating....

Would any one disagree on making this tread a sticky one?

Cheers,


Stephen

[David Clapper]

No objections Stephen,

Regards,

David

[Beth]

Dear David,

You first wrote:

one of the meanings of the root yud-reysh-dalet is "humbling" (viz Genesis 27:40). Perhaps "laredet" in this sense means to annihilate the ego ("bitul haYesh").

When I questioned you on this you wrote:

the word I am referring to is "tareed" which is the future tense of the infinitive "Laredet".

Thanks for clarifying the usage. By your presentation I assumed you were quoting Gen 27:40 as containing the word laredet.

I'm sure you are aware that 'yud' is a so-called weak letter which drops away in some forms

Yes, and that yod and vav are both interchangeable...

Rashi bases his translation on a similar verse in Psalms, namely Psalms 55:3, "Areed b'seechee". There is a cognate root Reysh-Vav-Dalet which also denotes complaint, and according to Ibn-Ezra this may have also have prompted Rashi to opt for this interpretation (at least according to the Tur). Commentators such as Rashbah and Sforno agree with Rashi's interpretation of suffering. Ibn Ezra himself translates "tareed" as deriving from the root Reysh-Dalet-Vav, to rule (viz I Kings 5:4). Radak and Ralbag agree with him. In all these cases, the idea is that this verse implies that Esau will be able to remove the yoke when Israel sins.

I am not sure what point you are making here, for if the root is indeed RDD, as I suggested, then both tareed and laradet, as well as areed, would all find their root meaning in "to subdue" "to beat down."  And yes, the verb yared "to descend" is certainly a related verb, which in the big scheme of things works into an esoteric context that by descending to earth through physical incarnation we are, by the very nature of the physical world, subdued from our true spiritual selves.  This was also my point when I suggest that:

it is by living in a world of iniquity that we must learn to revere God.

which was one of the ways that the ideas of descending and ascension could be translated.  And this fits nicely with your own view that:  

Violence can be seen as belonging to our "animal" nature, cleaving to God as belonging to our spiritual nature. In this world, the intention is that both are equal partners in carrying out God's will (for without the body, the spirit has no "tool" with which to act). However, the animal must submit to the spiritual.

You then wrote:

With this as context, I would like to translate the word "tareed" as "humbled"

That's fine, but I am still confused with your then connecting this to "bitul haYesh" which I assume you are reading as "to cease to do."  Maybe you are assuming that I know of a particular context that you are working from?  If you are trying to make these connections just through Gen 27:40 or even with a second in Psalms 55:3, I don't see the direct connection with "bitul haYesh."  Do you see my confusion in the point you are trying to make?  I do not doubt that there is one David; I am just not sure how you are getting there.  And further, what does this have to do with the current context of this thread where we were discussing taking symbols literally by expecting to encounter the same literal things on the astral plane that the MM mystics did?

By the way, this sentence can also be interpreted in a prophetic sense, referring to the reign of Jehoram when Edom revolted, throwing off the yoke that had been placed on them by King David.

I am not sure what you point is here either...

I think that a purely linguistic approach to the biblical texts (and the Heichalot literature) can be very misleading (if not futile) if you don't have a general context in which to orient your analysis.

Well, you are showing a very strict dependence upon the language of the bible to make your points, as am I.  There are many different layers of meaning to be found in the biblical texts, and the surface level is just one of these.  There is a virtual treasury of deeper meanings to be found when all of the possible meanings of these roots are investigated.  I am certainly not questioning Rashi or Ibn-Ezra, et al, but I would like to point out that I am actually following the methodology established by them in their own exegetical use of pure linguistics.

I do not believe the modern orthodox/Chassidic Jewish context is so far removed from the Heichalot mystics as to make attempts to interpret the texts through experience futile.

I never said that Chassidic Judaism was that far removed from Merkabah Mysticism.  I even admitted that I know very little about Chassidism.  I am only cautioning you that by taking the experiences as shown in the Heichalot literature literally – symbol for symbol – that you may be seeking something that is not yours to see.  As a result you may inadvertently cut yourself off from the potential uniqueness of your own experience--which you can then interpret through associating the symbols that you find with those of the ancient texts.  I guess that until you have experienced the astral this is probably an assumption that many people make, and perhaps I am all wet, but in my experience, the astral has not proven to be something that is dependably static or literally predictable.  

I don't think a secular context counts though.

I am not seeking a secular context, but even if I were, why would it not count? Throughout the centuries Judaism has continually reinterpreted their texts to bring them into step and tune with the current world reality.

It seems to me that you are too focused on the language per se (if I am wrong and you do have a context within which you are translating, please forgive me for thinking this).

Since I assume you are Jewish (Chassidic even?) and as well studied as it appears that you are, how can you not know and even embrace the importance of language to everything we experience--whether here on earth or on the astral???  This belief comes straight from the heart of Judaism as well as all of the shades of Jewish mysticism that I am aware of.  The vast canon of Jewish literature that we have today has only been made possible through a dedication and strict focus on the way language is used, whether it be expounding the scripture or in exercising the techniques of Abulafian Mysticism.  

Merkabah Mysticism was a language-based tradition—and highly esoteric at that. Do you honestly think that these mystics would have left us these writings to just pick up and read in order to repeat their experiences?  Do you think that they would have made it that easy?  If that were the case, then why did so many of the ancient mystics fail in their endeavor?--They were being trained and prepared by the best of the best, who had first hand access to the real methodology and the intended context of the Masters before them. Which leads to the question--why did only a precious few of these mystics succeed?

understanding the context is essential to translating accurately.

I could not agree more!  That is why I caution that a literal reading of the surface level might not be the mystical/astral context that you might assume it to be.

And as to not finding what I expect, who knows? I'm not even sure I know what I am expecting!

I am glad you have come to that conclusion!

Peace,
Beth

[David Clapper]

Hi Beth,

First, the reason I gave the linguistic analysis was that you said "humbling" was not a correct translation of laReDet! I was merely trying to show that I had not pulled the meaning of "humbling" out of thin air.

Second, I would think that the connection between humility and "bitul haYesh" (annihilation of the ego) is fairly obvious. I explained what I meant by bitul haYesh the first time I used it. It is a common term in Jewish mysticism, both modern and ancient.

Third, Jewish mystics have indulged in language-based mysticism yes, but this has been within the context of a given, accepted  philosophical structure. If you have read Abulafia's commentries on Maimonedes' "Guide for the Perplexed", you would see that even this most "wayward" of Jewish mystics did not indulge in hermeneutics just for the joy of indulging, letting his linguistic fantasy lead him where it will. Exegesis without an underlying philosophical structure is like a road without a map.

Fourth, I didn't even intend this thread to go into the discussion of how literally one can take symbols. As I have pointed out several times, what I am interested in is hearing if anyone has had experience with Merkavah symbolism. I have studied a lot yes, and it is because of this that I want some down to earth  experience. Either my own or someone else's. In that sense, thank you once again for sharing your experiential data with me.

Fifth, I did not mean to imply that you are secular. I have no idea what your background is. It was a general comment

Sixth, I don't agree that this is a world of iniquity (that's my Jewish background speaking again). That is a Gnostic idea (and perhaps a clue to where you are coming from?). In my view, good and evil co-exist in this world (and, from a Kabbalistic point of view, that is the reason this world was created). When God created the world, he said that it was good. I still believe that to be true.

Seventh, and last, if you are going to take every message of mine apart point by point (Virgo sun or ascendant?) I am going to lose interest I'm afraid. I enjoy a general exchange of ideas, in which all parties are allowed to brainstorm, but I don't like being forced onto the defensive/offensive at every twist and turn, and this discussion is going that way. Could we please return to the discussion of matters such as the meaning of LaReDet, which is germane to this thread?

To continue in the line of Whitt's questioning, what for example, might be the meaning of the water Rabbi Akiva refers to?

Kind regards,

David

[Beth]

Dear David,

First, the reason I gave the linguistic analysis was that you said "humbling" was not a correct translation of laReDet! I was merely trying to show that I had not pulled the meaning of "humbling" out of thin air.

No, I just pointed out that laredet was not used in Gen 27:40.  I was just trying to figure out where your usage of laredet came from.  You clarified that with tareed.

Second, I would think that the connection between humility and "bitul haYesh" (annihilation of the ego) is fairly obvious. I explained what I meant by bitul haYesh the first time I used it. It is a common term in Jewish mysticism, both modern and ancient.

Hmmm...I have never encountered that...but I have not read all the numerous commentaries that are available from within the tradition.

Third, Jewish mystics have indulged in language-based mysticism yes, but this has been within the context of a given, accepted philosophical structure. If you have read Abulafia's commentries on Maimonedes' "Guide for the Perplexed", you would see that even this most "wayward" of Jewish mystics did not indulge in hermeneutics just for the joy of indulging, letting his linguistic fantasy lead him where it will. Exegesis without an underlying philosophical structure is like a road without a map.

"Indulged in language based mysticism"?  Isn't that what entering the pardes is all about? Exegeses and philosophical structures would be impossible without language—and it is directly due to the malleable nature of Semitic language that such a variety of interpretations and systems are made possible—which have then been mystically expounded upon.  "Linguistic fantasy"??? ...I will pass over this in silence...

Fourth, I didn't even intend this thread to go into the discussion of how literally one can take symbols. As I have pointed out several times, what I am interested in is hearing if anyone has had experience with Merkavah symbolism. I have studied a lot yes, and it is because of this that I want some down to earth  experience. Either my own or someone else's. In that sense, thank you once again for sharing your experiential data with me

.

In my experience, symbolism is crucial to understanding that which is encountered in the astral realm—and understanding the archetypal nature of symbolism is a necessary precursor.  I just thought you were seeking information, and that was one of the things that I had to offer.

Fifth, I did not mean to imply that you are secular. I have no idea what your background is. It was a general comment

And I only wanted to point out that secular contexts do count, for as I said, throughout the centuries, Judaism has continually reinterpreted their texts to bring them into step and tune with the current world reality.  That has kept Judaism much more updated and secular than, for example Christianity has.

Sixth, I don't agree that this is a world of iniquity (that's my Jewish background speaking again). That is a Gnostic idea (and perhaps a clue to where you are coming from?). In my view, good and evil co-exist in this world (and, from a Kabbalistic point of view, that is the reason this world was created). When God created the world, he said that it was good. I still believe that to be true.

I was only suggesting that this was one of the ways that the ideas of descending and ascension could be translated.  But doesn't Scholem make a very good argument for Jewish Gnosticism being the precursor to Christian Gnosticism? Once again, my offering this as a possible meaning does not provide any clue as to where I am coming from in my own personal view.  

Seventh, and last, if you are going to take every message of mine apart point by point (Virgo sun or ascendant?) I am going to lose interest I'm afraid. I enjoy a general exchange of ideas, but I don't like being forced onto the defensive/offensive at every twist and turn, and this discussion is going that way.

Isn't a point by point exegesis what midrash is all about?  This kind of analysis is very important in the correct communication of ideas—and is not used often enough in my opinion.  Too many times people talk past one another without a definition of terms or a clarification of context. This can be very frustrating for everyone involved.  And no—I am not a Virgo.

Granted, I am academically trained and this is where my insistence upon clarity comes from, but for what it is worth, I know how you feel...I can easily remember how defensive I used to become when my professors and peers insisted upon correct usage and clarity of thought when critiquing my papers.  This is especially necessary in the fields of religion and metaphysics where symbols and abstract ideas are the rule rather than the exception.  So, my current need for this has grown out of learning what I consider to be the proper way to communicate—and without it, I too will loose interest.  

Even though the Pulse is not a formal educational setting, it is still a forum where people want to learn and share knowledge, and most especially when it comes to seeking information about the astral realm, which is teeming with abstract concepts, that striving for clarity is—in my opinion—all the more important.  The rules, as far as I am aware, are far from being fast and hard.

Could we please return to the discussion of matters such as the meaning of LaReDet, which is germane to this thread?

Very well.  You wrote:

Perhaps "laredet" in this sense means to annihilate the ego ("bitul haYesh").

The act of humility would seem to be necessary if one were striving to annihilate the ego.  And even though I am not familiar with this phrase being used as such, I can see where bitul hayesh – "ceasing to do" – could imply such annihilation (however difficult a complete and total annihilation would be.)  

To continue in the line of Whitt's questioning, what for example, might be the meaning of the water Rabbi Akiva refers to?

If you are referring to, "Don't say 'Water Water!'" My thoughts right off the cuff would be--to be very careful before you jump to conclusions—because reality is not always what it appears to be.  

Any other response I would offer you David, would be a linguistic one.  Let me know if you want my further input.  Until then, I will leave this thread to you...

Peace,
Beth

[David Clapper]

Dear Beth,

I am not your student, I am not defending a dissertation and yes, linguistic analysis without context is indulgence.

I would like to offer this translation of the mishna "Eyn Dorshin" (for analysis). This is the mishnah, in whose gemara the story of the four rabbis appears. The mishnah provides the context for the story. It will be found in tractate "Chagigah" of the Talmud, page 11b. [There is a good English/Hebrew edition available from www.artscroll.com]

"The [subject of] forbidden relations may not be expounded in the presence of three, nor the work of creation in the presence of two, nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge. Whoever speculates upon four things. Pity him! It is as though he had not come into the world. These are: what is above, what is beneath, what before, what after. And whoever takes no heed of the honour of his Maker, it would have been more merciful if he had not come to this world."

In the gemarah of this mishnah, we find the story of the four rabbis a few pages later (page 14b).

"Our rabbis taught: four men entered the "Garden", namely Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma, Acher and Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Akiba said to them "When you arrive at the stones of pure marble, do not say "Water, Water! For it is written he that speaks falsehood shall not be established before my eyes Ben Azzai cast a look and died. Of him scripture says precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints Ben Zoma looked and went insane. Scripture says of him, Have you found honey? Eat as much as you need, lest you become filled with it and vomit Acher cut the shoots. Rabbi Akiba departed unhurt."

The gemarah then goes on to give examples of Ben Zoma's madness, discusses what happened to Acher ("The other", the nickname for Rabbi Elisha Ben Avuya, who became an apostate), and explains why Rabbi Akiba came back unhurt. Interestingly enough, Ben Azzai's case is not really touched upon. By the way the text in italics are quotes from, in order, from Psalms 101:7, Psalms 116:15 and Proverbs 25:16.

I offer these two quotes for discussion (brainstorming / linguistic analysis whatever), by you, me and anyone else who cares to join in.

Kind regards,

David

[Beth]

Dear David,

I offer these two quotes for discussion (brainstorming / linguistic analysis whatever), by you, me and anyone else who cares to join in.

Why don't you start the discussion?

Peace,
Beth

p.s.  Everyone is my teacher...for right or wrong, for good or bad, for righteousness or arrogance, for wisdom or stupidity.  I am a student of life; every day I learn new things that I had never considered before and new examples of old things that I thought I had exhausted the need to experience...

[redcatherine]

I was wondering if anyone had already tried these out, or is interested in trying to follow the route traced out in the Heichalot texts....

yes there are those that have tried this
through the ages
and contemporarily
all humanity is invited to this path
which transcends ages and religions
it is open to all and exclusive to none
most of this text you cite  is to be taken literally
not symbolically  in this particular case

we are they the ones that seek
us all of us
all of humanity
we seek  to try to recall the path to reunite with our higher self and with the God within each of us and return home while in the body so as to bring the conscious to a state that we can learn to work in love light and peace on earth and not just in spirit after this body's death

it is a noble pursuit and you can do this David
do not let anyone on earth deafen your ears
or blind you to the sights of the angels surrounding you

They are ready to lead you to the glory God wants each of us to find in his love .

Until others are ready to receive the message themselves
they are not ready to perceive it and they will argue that you should not bother.

Who will you listen to ?
Your hungry soul or to those who have never seen an angel and have never have flown to a spiritual realm

Listen to the truth of your own .

You are right .

Seven chambers of light perceived = the seven realms of heaven

Shmu''el, stands at the windows of the lower firmament ;listening =
the window on the edge of the universe is a spiritual realm a gate .
We have been there it exists we have met this angel too

they (the seekers )

call to each other and talk to each other
= we see each other in these realms and talk to each other as we travel in ascension groups

ascend from the rivers of fire with each others permission,
=we help each other hand over hand to ascend together

Make themselves like light and like the most radiant lightning.
=We are taught to make our spirit more and more light less and less negative and ego bound and physically heavy

ascend by a ladder of fire,
=the kundalini and the tree of life

reach the armies of the seventh heaven, the pure chashmal(?),  
(reach )the wheels of the chariot,
stand in awe and reverence,  fear and humility,
cover their faces with their wings ..not to look upon the form of God
stand in classes of thousands upon thousands,...
before the throne of the  the holy creatures
=we and many of humanity now and in the past have gone there and other places with angels with the loving help of angels to learn

prepare and sanctify themselves, with each one of the million crowns of [different] types of light on their heads,
dressed in garments of light,
faces wrapped in lightning,
wrap themselves more because the chariot is in front of them,
=the chariot is the spiritual vehicle we are born with that we develop with the help of God to ascend spiritually it can be clairvoyantly witnessed and it is quite beautiful to behold

the throne of glory is above their heads,
the Shechinah is high above them,
=the female aspect of the Godhead comes to greet us very early on this path

the rivers of fire are passing between them.
purify themselves with light seventy times,
all of them stand in purity ... with [one] voice, one speech, one knowledge, and one melody.
direct the four legs of the throne,
=to get there we need to understand the four spiritual elements

each leg corresponding to another,
each wheel corresponding to another,
each creature corresponding to another
=the four animals of the sphinx

each cherub corresponding to another,
and each melody corresponding to another. T
raise the chariot with the sound of songs and praises.
=we raise it with prayer of thanksgiving and  adoration to God


if the dissenters pull you down write to me privately
by each one we teach we go forward ourselves and learn from the one who has also gone before us

If you would like to develop your merkava and go to see the angels and learn in the palaces on spiritual realms you can it is not a myth this is part of God's glory

it is sad to read others persuading you to turn back

go forward and upward with all of your might and all of your heart
the arms of the angels reach out to you even now

God Bless You and Keep You and Yours [/size]