Two Vital Kabbalah Sefer Yetzirah Doctrines Nibley Ignored

[_Philo Sofee]

I didn't say much other than a rant about the Sefer Yetzirah and Nibley's maladroit handling of such a phenomenal Kabbalistic text in my last post, so here I will say only two things.

1. Nibley says Kaplan frequently mentioned the Holy Ghost as an important part of God in the Sefer Yetzirah. Now, Nibley's choice of words, and leaving the actual Sefer Yetzirah idea alone, left the impression that this was the Mormon idea of the Holy Ghost as a member of the Godhead as understood by Mormonism. This is blatantly erroneous from the Sefer Yetzirah way of thinking, and I think it was blatantly dishonest of Nibley to imply we are within Mormonism here in the Kabbalah.
God is conceived in the Kabbalah as literally, fully, and without question beyond both space and time in infinity with no possible way of even conceiving God, who has no attributes (yes this leads to some juicy contradictions!). God is infinite and we can't even describe him that way as that gives a definition of what is beyond definition. Yes, it's a conundrum, it's supposed to be. It is designed to get you meditating.
This is not Mormonism's embodied God by any stretch of the imagination. The only embodied God in the Kabbalah is an abstraction of the Supernal Man that is seen abstractly drawn on the ten sephiroth of the Kabbalah Tree of Life, not a literal body. There is no literal embodied God in Kabbalah.

The second area (among many!) that Nibley literally ignored, yet is a huge part of the symbolism of all the Kabbalah, absolutely critical to grasp its imagery and symbolism is the Sefer Yetzirah's description of the Cube of Space and the geometry the Sefer Yetzirah is attempting to get us to grasp from our limited physical plane here, as a cube (even though its supposed to be infinite). It is vital to get this because it ties in so powerfully with the number symbolism of the Kabbalah as well. Kevin Townley and David Allen Hulse as well as Leonora Leet have been the three most elaborate and distinct voices sharing the idea with us. But Kaplan described, and showed drawings of it and talked about the importance of geometry in the Kabbalah. Nibley only wanted to go in circles because of he round hypocephalus, so it was only and exclusively that imagery he talked about (barely). You simply cannot grasp the magnificent imagery and ideas of the Kabbalah if you ignore its vast geometry. My suggestion is pick up Leonora Leet, the greatest expositor of Kabbalistic geometry in print, if you want to grasp the incredible ties with the geometry and the scriptures.

O.K., a third point Nibley barely mentioned, but is THE major emphasis of the Sefer Yetzirah. The importance of the letters. Their use, their shape, the meaning of what they signify, how to use them, change them, arrange them to create new energies (no wonder he left this out, this ain't Joseph Smith Mormonism so Nibley apparently didn't think it was important). Anyway, truly, after reading the second time Nibley's last book, and having acquired a much keener critical thinking apparatus in my brain than I ever imagined having as an apologist, I must say, Nibley is too shallow. If one wants to argue with me on that, sure, but first read his treatment of the Kabbalah (he barely just mentioned by name only the Zohar, and ignored the Bahir all together!) and then read the Sefer Yetzirah, the Bahir, and the Zohar (granted this one will take ya some time! It's several dozen volumes). You will see that Nibley is simply sloppy and out of his league to get it actual. His is the milky white sop before the prime rib of Kabbalah Mormon version.

See ya next Kabbalah post. I will lay Nibley down for now, he's a waste of time to talk about. There are much better and informed Kabbalah scholars who can and will actually teach us something. I only bring Nibley into it because of the research for my own book, which is going to take me some time before I get it done......sigh..... but I am working on it. And it's going to be good.