On Nov 6, 11:36 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is no reason to think Shakespeare > had any knowledge. That is based on a very weak legend the Shakespeare > and Francis Bacon were one and the same person
Many people who do *NOT* believe that Bacon and Newton were the same person have some to the conclusion that Shakespeare was involved in QBL from studying his plays, especially The Merchant of Venice. This is a link to and part of any essay by one such person: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:T5D_2SECqxAJ:www.danielyharris.com/pdfs/Shakespeare-Kabbalah-and-the-Occult.pdf+shakespeare+shylock+and+kabbalah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us The Merchant of Venice was written in 1598 and first performed in 1600, the year Hamlet was written and the year Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake, in Venice, his books used at kindling. The decade of the 1590’s in England was the era of the Jewish Converso, Rodrigo Lopez (accused of trying to poison Queen Elizabeth and burnt at the stake) and Marlowe’s Barabbas, in addition to being the era of wide- spread Christian Cabala among the literati. The difference between Barabbas and Shylock (and Shylock does lament that his daughter had not eloped with one from the stock of Barabbas) is that Barabbas is a Jew-baiting cartoon of agit-prop meant to incite emotive response to -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 10 Shakespeare, Kabbalah and the Occult, DYH, 10foment antisemitism. Shylock is a dignified, albeit rapturous human being and the most powerful dramatic voice that Shakespeare had yet created between 1589 and 1596. Influenced by Giorgi, Shakespeare produced in The Merchant of Venice a music-of-the-spheres poetry that would be rivaled only by Hamlet and Sir John Falstaff. According to Yates who reads Daniel Banes’s book The Provocative Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare read Giorgi’s De Harmonia in French in 1595. Shakespeare’s absorption of Giorgi leads Banes to surmise that the Venice of his play is a kabbalistic Eden replete with a Tree of Life and ten Sefirot. Banes names Antonio Hesed, names Shylock Gevurah and Portia Tiferet. Albeit provocative, we may surmise that the entire Merchant of Venice is gevuric and that Shylock is Shakespeare’s own invention of his emerging poetic autobiography. Portia is certainly beautiful and bestowed with some of Shakespeare’s most powerful poetry. Antonio is certainly touched with love, albeit the homoerotic kind. Bassanio is clever enough to pick the lead casket, which Daniel Banes says is symbolic of Judaism.Respectively, the three caskets represent the three religions: gold=Christianity; silver=Islam; lead=Judaism. Banes quotes Proverbs 8:10-11, Choose my discipline, and not silver/Choose understanding, and not fine gold;/For wisdom is better than rubies.According to Giorgi, lead represents Saturn which represents the religion of the Jews. It is by choosing the religion of the Jews, the Torah that Bassanio wins his Christian princess. We may even surmise that the lovely poetry expounded by Lorenzo before his beloved Jessica is indeed cherubic, but it seems to pale, as does the verse employed by Portia, before the Kadmonic Shylock, who resonates with a powerful life-creating force.In fact, Shylock is the Shakespearian giest which propelled Shakespeare to invent Sir John Falstaff and Hamlet. Without the rapturous kabbalistic emptying out of core force, Shakespeare could not have moved on to the very limits of literary art with Hamlet. Shylock inherits the Generations of Adam and cleaves to adamic invention, thus the pound of flesh, which reminds one of the weight of adamic clay-flesh employed by Yahweh at the primal scene of invention. Shylock is Shakespeare’s first Kabbalist and hisfirst reach through the agonic play of word-creating lifeforms. He employed the gevuric strength of “the Jew,” which he understood through Giorgi and Bruno as well as “the Jew” of antisemitism, to create his own Kadmonic poet of the dark soul, who must be content at the end, as Shakespeare must be content as his creation. In 1596, Shakespeare realized with Shylock, that he (Shakespeare) possessed a talent which would exceed the limits of the stage. This Kabbalic exceeding was no less than the Adam Kadmon, the poet of God-names reaching unknown regions of the psyche and soul all for the sake of invention, artistry and doing God’s work as the ancient writers did. Sources Philip Beitchman, Alchemy of the Word: Cabala of the Renaissance, State University of New Press, Albany, 1988 Frances A. Yates, The Art of Memory, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966 Frances A. Yates, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, Routledge Classics, New York, 1979 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 11 Shakespeare, Kabbalah and the Occult, DYH, 11Frances A. Yates, Majesty and Magic in Shakespeare’s Last Plays, Shambhala, Boulder, 1978 Daniel Banes, The Provocative Merchant of Venice, Malcolm House Publications, Chicago, 1975 Daniel Banes, Shakespeare, Shylock and Kabbalah, Malcolm House Publications, Chicago, 1978 David B. Ruderman, Editor, Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, NY University Press, New York, 1992 Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, Schocken Books, New York, 1991 Gershom Scholom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Schocken, New York, 1967 Moshe Idel, Messianic Mystics, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998 Daniel C. Matt, The Zohar, Pritzker Edition Volumes 1-3, Stanford Edition, 2004-2005 Harold Bloom, David Rosenberg, The Book of J, Grove Weidenfeld, New York, 1990 Linda Woodbridge, The Scythe of Saturn, Shakespeare and Magical Thinking, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1994 Arthur Versluis, Shakespeare the Magus, Grail Publications, St. Paul, 2001 Daniel Y. Harris, “The Night Moses de Leon Died,” In Posse Review, Issue #15, on the Internet, http://www.webdelsol.com/InPosse/harris15.htmAddendum Shakespeare, Kabbalah, and the Occult is part of a reader produced by Lehrhaus Judaica for “Engagement and Learning for Leaders: Jewish Community Federation SonomaStudy Group,” 2007 On Nov 6, 11:36 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to nit pick, but Newton was not knowledgeable of QBL, while > knowledgeable of related work. There is no reason to think Shakespeare > had any knowledge. That is based on a very weak legend the Shakespeare > and Francis Bacon were one and the same person. Bacon did have in > depth knowledge. The legend is purposeful and meant to demonstrate > that genius has a separate embodiment beyond the individual. However > they were most certainly not the same individual and Shakespeare > unlikely had anymore than fleeting knowledge. Di Vinci, on the other > hand, was stone cold into it. > > http://niggerwise.com > > On Nov 6, 9:31 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > BBDD, > > > it sounds to me like you are able to write meaningfully about QBL. > > However, I am wondering why you are so quick to proclaim your > > expertise to in this discussion group. I have good reason to believe, > > both from experience, observation and reading that when one starts to > > manipulate their mind with QBL and other similar tools, it is common > > for them to be fooled into thinking that they are far more advanced > > than they really are. That doesn't mean that I know that you are a > > mere dabbler, but I will not be easily convinced that you are possible > > expert like Newton, Shakespeare, Elias Ashmole and other great men > > seem to have been. I would like to give you another friendly warning > > that you may have heard before. Please do not take this to mean that I > > think that you are crazy, I don't, but as you have probably bean > > warned it is easy enough to mess up your mind with QBL. My advice is > > to proceed slowly. QBL is a powerful tool, but it is not without it's > > dangers and limitations. > > > On Nov 6, 5:37 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Centers are quite obvious and living in them is just as obvious with a > > > little free thought. Motive center is easily recognized. It is that > > > portion of mind we think in quickly enough to apply the brakes in an > > > emergency. Emotive center is that one which gets us in the most > > > trouble by causing us to act on emotion before fully considering > > > consequences. Cogent center is the portion of mind that does consider, > > > but it also "identifies" and considers far more than is essential to > > > any endeavor. Pneuma is that part of mind that handles conceptualizing > > > and dreaming ~ sometime way too heavy on the dreaming. > > > > An example of living in a center would be the bookkeeper type that > > > lives less adventure and is unable to dare emotionally. Another would > > > be the athlete with an aversion to poetry and sensitivity. Our > > > greatest strength is in living in and balancing all centers of mind. > > > There is a method for doing so. The period most noted for the wide use > > > of such methods is the Renaissance. These methods saw another period > > > of popularity during the Industrial Revolution. > > > >http://niggerwise.com > > > > On Nov 6, 4:14 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Generally, centers exist in us. When we narrow our selves down and > > > > gain stewardship over the legions of self, we begin to exist in > > > > centers. This occurs as we master. The master athlete lives in motive > > > > center. The master thespian lives in emotive center. The master > > > > industrialist lives in cogent center. The master poet lives in pneuma > > > > center. Each lives one life per domain or center… ideally. > > > > > Now, of course this is not so clear cut and “ideal” in practice. The > > > > master dancer lives in motive and emotive centers. The master artist > > > > must live in all four. The more domains you have life in, the more you > > > > live. This principle allows one to increase time within a given time. > > > > > One might think of this as adding strands to the necklace of life. > > > > There is another more commonly understood method of increasing time > > > > within given time. This is to essentially add beads to each strand. > > > > The more you know and dare, the more you live. Many strive to be one > > > > thing in life limiting quantity of life. It is better to be all things > > > > that present themselves, thus increasing life. Adding strands > > > > increases the quality of life. Adding beads increases the quantity of > > > > life. Doing either increases the span of life across given time. > > > > >http://niggerwise.com-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
