Kabbalistic Utterance and the Direct Perception of Legality
© 2002
>> How does a Kabbalist who is a Bardon Kabbalist utilize direct perception in dealing with the letters, when Bardon gives a list of correspondences himself? Do you simply use them, to start with, as it were, and once your perceptual faculty and concentrative facility is refined, take it from there, or, something else? I understand the value of direct perception, because I have audio synaesthesia, and whenever I hear a musical note, a whole lot of things happen. <<
The clue is in the context in which the work with KTQ begins -- Step Nine. The Bardonian kabbalist has just completed Step Eight which concerned mental wandering. That's the setting.
Direct perception occurs at a purely mental level and is accomplished by the raw or naked mental body itself. In other words, the initiate who has completed Step Eight is no stranger to direct perception. They will already have developed this ability before beginning the work of KTQ.
Bardon's tables and lists are just guides meant to lead you in the right direction if you don't already perceive the right direction. They are, after all, very vague things. Can you pinpoint with absolute accuracy THE color red? Or THE feeling 'hot'? Where is the exact boundary between 'abdomen' and 'legs'? Even the notes vary from person to person. And so on. These are only guides that direct the student down a very broad path toward *their* ultimate direct perception.
It must be understood *beforehand* that these are only broad guides, and that one must rely upon direct perception and not a table of correspondences. If you take Bardon's correspondences as being absolutely specific (as opposed to broad), and use them instead of your direct perception, the results will be only partial and fairly limited to the mental realm (i.e., Single Letter Key).
>> So, if I go by your ideas, theoretically, given the certitude offered by direct perception through personal experimentation, in theory I would have been able to uncover the "correct" attributions myself through my own direct perception? <<
Yes, of course. How do you think that very first ever table of correspondences was derived? ;-) In point of fact, direct perception is the *only* way to discover the "correct" attributions. The guidance offered by a table of correspondences merely speeds this process in that it tells you to look to the left instead of your having to look in every direction before you do finally look left. But even with this modicum of guidance, you still have to discover how far to the left . . . is it left-up or left-down . . . etc.
>> But, if I understand him correctly, what Rawn has said implies that the effect of Qabbalistic speech is determined by the Intent and Will of the Qabbalist, not by the sounds themselves. Presumably, then, the same sound can have different effects, depending on what the Qabbalist intends; for example, a 'B' sound could mean one thing in a certain symbolic system and a different thing in another, so a Qabbalist working with the first system and speaking a 'B' sound Qabbalistically would be intending something different to a Qabbalist speaking a 'B' sound while using the other system. <<
At the root of kabbalistic speech is the cognizance of legality. The Legality is the root from which all else springs. It is the only component in kabbalistic speech that cannot be interchanged. Thus the utterance of the 'B' sound carries with it a specific legality. It requires very precise and unique physical movements which result in a very specific and unique set of vibrations (sound). Within that unique set, there are many variables or shades of difference, but they all still lie within the confines of the 'B' sound. The 'B' sound is universally the same when uttered by a human body, requiring the same physical movements, etc.
When we interpose another color or tone or sensation for the 'B' sound, and combine them with the 'B' legality, a slightly different expression of that root 'B' legality results. But it still remains within the bounds of the 'B' legality. On the other hand, if we try to impose a foreign legality upon our utterance of the 'B' sound, the result will be nil.
In the older kabbalistic texts there can be found quite a variety of attributions for the letters but the legality remains universal among them all (at least among those based upon actual experience and not just pure conjecture). So the only thing that actually varies, intent wise, is the particular flavor of expression of the established or constant legality.
The set of correspondences that Bardon supplied in KTQ, when applied to the root legality of each letter and uttered magically, result in the effects that Bardon described. And even though Bardon's correspondences differ from some of what is to be found in Jewish kabbalah (he agrees primarily with the attributions of the Ra'avad), he adheres completely with the established legality of each letter.
>> How can the Qabbalistic utterance of a word be effective in any language other than one in which the meaning of a word is related to the sounds forming it? <<
I think the missing ingredient in your comprehension of this is the way in which a word (i.e., composite of letter-sounds) is uttered kabbalistically. The word itself is irrelevant. Each letter of the word is taken individually. For example, let's take the three letter word A-M-Th. The Aleph would be uttered and placed in the Akasha. Then the Mem would be uttered and placed in the mental realm. Finally, the Tav would be uttered and placed in the astral realm. There would be a continuity of intention throughout the utterance of all three letters and in this way they would incorporate the 'word' that these three letters form. But the utterance itself contends with the letters as individual units, set in a specific sequence.
The fact that in Hebrew these three letters mean "the truth" is significantly helpful, while the fact that in English these three letter sounds mean nothing would offer no help. But in either language, this is still a valid kabbalistic formula. Conversely, the English word 'dog' could be treated in the same manner, although the meaning of the English word 'dog' has no relevance to the kabbalistic formula of these three letter-sounds.
>> How is it possible for this word to be pronounced Qabbalistically, if the imposition of the 'foreign legality' of the meaning of the word in English on the legality of the 'B' (and other) sounds making up the word results in a nullification of the effect? <<
The legality is resident within each individual letter sound, not within the meaning of the word. This is why the Hebrew *language* is helpful -- it's words reflect the combination of the legality of each letter that makes up the word. In other words, the sequential legality of Aleph, Mem and Tav, is reflecting by the meaning of the word A-M-Th, "the truth". Whereas in English the sequential legality of 'D', 'O' and 'G' is *not* reflected in the meaning of the word 'dog'. But this has nothing to do with its value as a kabbalistic key.
>> So I would guess that it is important to know whether a system has conceptions associated with its sounds that are compatible with the actual legalities of the sounds, before one starts to study it as a means of learning Qabbalistic utterance. Also, is it possible to learn Qabbalistic utterance without reference to any particular symbolic sound-system, focusing only on the actual legalities of the sounds? <<
As I've said before, kabbalistic utterance is possible *only* if it's rooted in the direct perception of legality. Bardon's placement of KTQ at the end of Step Eight guarantees (assuming one has followed his instruction) that the direct perception of legality is already an acquired ability. It is in this context, and with this ability in hand, that the student begins the preparatory exercises of learning the alphabet. As I mentioned in a previous thread not long ago, the table of correspondences is meant only as a guide to indicate the sort of expressions of the core legality one should employ in order to achieve the indicated effects. If the student is incapable of perceiving this legality for themselves, then using the correspondences as given will do them no good.
So long as one can directly perceive the legality inherent to a letter sound and has gained the magical abilities to utter it with their three bodies simultaneously, then a table of correspondences is unnecessary. So too, at that point, would be the study of any set cosmology such a kabbalah. In the 'end', it's all unnecessary, but the Great Joke is that it IS at some point necessary if you really want to reach that 'end' where it becomes unnecessary! ;-)
>> But isn't the direct perception of legality a consequence of the successful completion of KTQ Step V, when one has already learned the alphabet in the first four Steps of KTQ? <<
No, the direct perception of legality is a consequence of the completion of *Step Eight* of IIH. That's the whole point of placing KTQ at this juncture.
The preparatory Steps in KTQ teach you how to use the IIH techniques and abilities -- including the direct perception of essential meaning / legality -- in kabbalistic speech. The various exercises also have the effect of transforming your three bodies in the ways necessary for kabbalistic utterance.
>> Furthermore, doesn't the successful completion of KTQ Step V rely on having completed years of study of the Qabbalistic cosmology based on the alphabet and numbers? <<
I see that I have not expressed myself very clearly in previous statements about this. :) The simple answer is no. Studying the kabbalistic cosmology helps immensely, in my experience, but is not a requirement. Bardon's KTQ can be accomplished without any knowledge of kabbalah at all. All that's *required* is the completion of Step Eight of IIH and the attainment of the requisite abilities.
However, if you want to pursue the use of Jewish kabbalistic formulae (such as the Shem ha'Mephorash), in a truly Jewish way (as opposed to the way you can use any combination of letter sounds to create or utter formulae), then yes, an intensive study of kabbalistic cosmology would be essential. Also, if you choose to employ the Hebrew letters, with all of their attendant symbolism -- instead of using just the letter sounds without the Hebrew symbolism -- then you would need this intensive study.
>> Surely, then, it is important to be sure that the alphabet (symbolic sound-system) one studies and works with is one in which the conceptions associated with its sounds are compatible with the actual legalities of the sounds, before one becomes able to perceive these legalities directly in KTQ Step V? <<
I hope you understand at this point that this is not a viable path toward the direct perception of legality. Legality or essential meaning is not something you *learn*. It's something you *perceive*. This is one reason why Bardon made it the fourth pole of the quadrapolar magnet in regards to KTQ, yet said so little about it. Each of the poles relies upon a sense and this ability of direct perception IS a sense. We indeed must learn to develop this sense but we cannot *learn* what we then perceive with it. The work of Steps One through Eight is what gives birth to this sense.
Prior to developing this sense, it is *helpful* to work with a system that accurately expresses this essential legality. If nothing else, it trains your mind in ways that are compatible with, and supportive of, the development of your direct perception. The conflict between the results of your eventual direct perception and what you have learned will then be less shocking than if you had worked with a system that didn't express the proper legality. ;-)
But be forewarned, no such system is perfectly accurate. Words can capture only a minute fraction of the information received through the direct perception of essential meaning. This is true even if a trillion words are used to describe the direct perception of the simplest thing. A system that truly expresses the legality, such as Hebrew or KTQ, can only guide you in the proper direction, but you still have to perceive the radiant light flashing through that eye-in-the-needle, for yourself.
My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
11 Sep 2002