Merely Fanciful Interpretations

Nothing much has really happened over the Easter up ‘till now and so there’s precious little to relate.

As mentioned, Gareth had to go to a meeting on Friday and so he made it tomorrow instead. I forget to mention that before that in the week, he gave a Talk in London to a group under the umbrella of the Pagan Federation on the Qabbala. He told me it was quite successful, especially because there are many people who just don’t really know what this ancient Hebrew magical system is really all about.

One reason is because – mainly due to secrecy to protect from abuse – much of it is explained in symbolism and it takes many years of dedicated study to realise what this really relates to. Perhaps typically, many books have been written about it attempting to explain the symbolism but, perhaps equally typically, many conclusions are merely fanciful interpretations on the part of the authors concerned.

I have always refused (at least in public) to discuss this ancient system for this very reason. By its very complexity it is too vulnerable to human misinterpretation; and I am only too aware how dangerous this can be sometimes!

The closest I ever got to answering any questions on the Qabbala was at a talk I gave in South Devon a few years ago to some esoteric students. All I would say to define it was that it was a ‘map of consciousness’ and left it at that. It would have been impossible to have gone any further anyway, because to understand many levels in consciousness it is necessary to quite literally go beyond the mental realm. And as most people are trapped in this, it is certainly not an easy thing to demonstrate or explain.

I can say this much though: there is nothing ‘heathen’ or malign about this secret esoteric tradition. It does not deny the existence of God or ‘God Head’ but merely presents a potential ‘escape though’ the very human doctrines and ties that would otherwise keep you from It. Which they do.

Anyway, enough on that. Or I’ll only be accused of being ’anti religious’ at Easter!

Other developments, and my friend K has been arranging another film interview on my behalf. Guess what its about?! Yes, you’ve guessed it! Vampires!!

I often wonder why it is that people keep associating myself with these, when I have already made it quite clear that I do not even believe in them! But I suppose they all ’fit into’ the occult in a way which probably explain it.

On this same subject, I also had a phone call from a book publisher in Switzerland who would like to interview Patsy and myself. I spoke to him about a year ago and he phoned me because of his emails last year had not been passed on. Anyway, that matters not. We are in contact again now.

Well, I think I’ll conclude this ‘Easter Blog’. It is a little cold, and snow was actually falling quite heavily not long ago.

Oh! One quick thing more. That pesky Cat has got onto ‘ghosts cats’ now in the replies. Which might amuse a few people!

For the moment though,

David

  • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

    Not ghost cats in general, but specifically how the Rams Inn is exploiting that poor dead cat in their “bishop’s room” (which bishop? Bonky?).

    Please explain it, Farrant: how could a “spectral” cat leave “physical” urine stains on the bedcovers?

    • reply David Farrant ,

      IF it was a ‘spectral’ cat, the answer is that I really don’t know. But I never said I did.

      If it was a ‘normal’ cat, however, it could have just been skulking around the place (you should know all about that!) because somebody had forgotten to empty its litter tray.

      Can’t we get back onto women. That subject interests me a lot more!

      David

      • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

        Have you ever had a relationship with a nonmaterial woman?

        • reply David Farrant ,

          I have had material relationships with women, Cat, and, in some cases, I have also had non-material ones.

          By ‘non-material’, I really mean ‘spiritual’, although I could hardly expect you to understand that!

          David

          • reply Craig ,

            i think u give cat quite a hard trime david!
            he asks some fair questions sometimes.

            i’ve always been interested in ghosts of animals. not big black dogs or lock ness things but proper ones.
            they seem to pick up on energy a lot more than us humans so they must be more intune with nature as oposed to being spoilt by stuff.
            i wonder if they r actually picking up other dead animals.
            when my first cat died i swear i could hear and feel him brushing past me for at least a week.

            cheers
            Craig

            • reply David Farrant ,

              “i think u give cat quite a hard trime david!
              he asks some fair questions sometimes.”

              ME giving him a hard time!!??? After all his quips about my dressing mode and innuendo’s about personal relationships with the opposite sex!? Not even to mention the scorn he casts on my psychic investigations.

              But I suppose I kinda like the mangy creature now, which is why I bother to even answer sometimes!

              As to your other points about another meeting, with potential photograps, (not to mention ‘my’ Shilpa), I’ll come back to you here tomorrow on this.

              It really is getting pretty cold now, and besides, I’m trying to finish something else!

              So, ’till tomorrow,

              David

              • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

                – “After all his quips about my dressing mode”

                Quips? Pray tell, what quips? I merely pointed out ONCE that in the graveyard photo at the head of this blog, “Farrant looks like he is wearing a frock.”

                If he wishes to wear cheesecloth knickers (or shirts, robes, or whatever) it’s none of my business!

                Miaow.

                PS: what is this you say about a potential meeting with Shilpa Shetty?

                • reply David Farrant ,

                  “PS: what is this you say about a potential meeting with Shilpa Shetty”

                  Cat, note: I have only answered your ‘PS’ and ignored your other rhetorical ‘observations’!

                  My agent is in the process of arranging that.

                  Shilpa may have dressed up in a ‘leotard’ (sorry, ‘leopard-tard’) for a good cause, but that does not necessarily mean she would take to all cats.

                  So, no, you are NOT invited!

                  David

                  • reply David Farrant ,

                    With regard to this story about a ghostly cat urinating on the witches’ bed in the Ancient Ram Inn, I have to say that I have never heard of a ghost, animal or human, urinating, even though, at The Spaniards by Hampstead Heath, ghosts are most commonly reported in the Ladies’ Cloakroom. Admittedly ghost cats are quite common, in fact a friend of mine who is a professional psychic has one in her apartment. I recall that on one occasion, a young woman who was visiting came out of her kitchen in a state of near hysteria, saying that she had seen a ginger cat – a spirit cat, that is – jump off a chair. My friend, completely casual about such things, remarked calmly: “That’s funny, most people say that it’s a grey cat.” At this the lady got even more hysterical, and never went there again.

                    As to my Kabbalah (the proper way of spelling it is contentious) lecture, it is as David says a very large and abstruse subject, and trying to summarise it in one hour was not easy. I decided to give a historical outline, rather than trying to deal with any particular point in depth. Also, as I usually do when speaking, I put in some humorous comments, for instance, it is a fact that the Christian Kabbalists of the Renaissance referred to the trinity in Hebrew as Ben, Ruach and Ab (Son, Spirit, and Father), which they reduced to a ‘notariqon’ (acronym), giving them the mystical word BRA (which means creation, this being supposed to prove that the trinity created the universe). As I had expected, this produced a laugh, particularly from a certain plump lady whose own ‘cup runneth over’. But not everyone appreciated this, and in the question time a serious looking woman complained that she was there for ‘continued professional development’, and, though she had found my talk interesting, objected to the laughter as distracting. Should I, for her sake, do a completely dry and po-faced version of the same talk?

                    Gareth J. Medway

                    Leave a comment