The Phoenix Force: Where does it say in any comic Phoenix is part of God?

Started by Mindship14 pages
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The Kabbalah is not really part of Judaism and hasn't been since 1710 odd 🙂 Its simply a bit of a joke mystic fools like Crowley and Maddona

It's not part of mainstream or everyday Judaism, but it is "Judaic mysticism," having its source waaayy back among Jews in the Middle East around the time Christianity got started. For most of Jewish history in the last 2000 years, it was not (still is not) generally encouraged as a practice among the general Jewish population for two main reasons: 1) being mainly an ethical faith, "mainstream" Judaism did not concern itself with otherwordly matters the way the Eastern mystical schools of thought did; and 2) Kabbalah, it was felt, at times, challenged what were regarded as unquestonable Judaic precepts. For example, when Rabbi Akiva had his vision of Metatron seated next to the throne of God, while all the other divine presences were standing, Akiva wondered if there were two chief Divine powers.

As Christainity gained momentum, it began to interpret Kabbalah with regard to the nature of Jesus and God's Plan for Humankind.

I don't know about Crowley, but Madonna's adoption of Kabbalah is likely because she is reacting in part to her Christian upbringing, which she saw as stifling, and because, well, Eastern mysticism has been "pop" since the Beatles kick-started interest in it back in the 1960s. Madonna may be many things, but she is not a follower.

What I find most interesting is how "God" has found its way into comics over the last decade or so. Back in the 60s and 70s, this was a topic generally avoided. I guess, in the attempt to keep making stories bigger and characters more powerful, sooner or later the Big G (no, not Galactus) was gonna show up.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's not part of mainstream or everyday Judaism, but it is "Judaic mysticism," having its source waaayy back among Jews in the Middle East around the time Christianity got started. For most of Jewish history in the last 2000 years, it was not (still is not) generally encouraged as a practice among the general Jewish population for two main reasons: 1) being mainly an ethical faith, "mainstream" Judaism did not concern itself with otherwordly matters the way the Eastern mystical schools of thought did; and 2) Kabbalah, it was felt, at times, challenged what were regarded as unquestonable Judaic precepts. For example, when Rabbi Akiva had his vision of Metatron seated next to the throne of God, while all the other divine presences were standing, Akiva wondered if there were two chief Divine powers.

As Christainity gained momentum, it began to interpret Kabbalah with regard to the nature of Jesus and God's Plan for Humankind.

I don't know about Crowley, but Madonna's adoption of Kabbalah is likely because she is reacting in part to her Christian upbringing, which she saw as stifling, and because, well, Eastern mysticism has been "pop" since the Beatles kick-started interest in it back in the 1960s. Madonna may be many things, but she is not a follower.

What I find most interesting is how "God" has found its way into comics over the last decade or so. Back in the 60s and 70s, this was a topic generally avoided. I guess, in the attempt to keep making stories bigger and characters more powerful, sooner or later the Big G (no, not Galactus) was gonna show up.

taken from elsewhere

This prohibition has come from Ashkenazic (East European) Jews and has never applied to Sepharidic (Middle Eastern) Jews. The historical basis for the "rule" comes from opponents of Kabbalah within Judaism who (successfully) attempted to restrict its study. At the root of this was the heresy of false messiah Shabbatai Tzevi (17th. C) which resulted in large numbers of Jews leaving the orthodox fold. This heresy had deep Kabbalistic underpinnings, and in the attempt to stamp out Shabbateanism, Kabbalah itself became suspect, and specific prohibitions against the study of Kabbalah were enacted (e.g. the excommunication of the Frankists in Poland in 1756).

A further factor was the degeneration (in the eyes of their rationalist opponents) of 18th. century Hasidism, which had roots both in Kabbalah and Shabbateanism, into "wonder working" and superstition. The rationalist faction in Judaism triumphed, and the study of Kabbalah became largely discredited, to the extent that many Jewish publications written earlier in this century discuss Kabbalah (if at all) in a very negative way.

Basically most Jews do not take it seriously - A few Rabbis do 🙂 but they are usually fringists.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Basically most Jews do not take it seriously - A few Rabbis do 🙂 but they are usually fringists.

I would even broaden that statement: generally most people don't take a mystical perspective seriously because we don't live in "those kinda times."

Didn't we have a similar discussion like this once before? You and I come from different polarities, so to speak, but still it was one of the best mental workouts I'd had online in a long while. 🙂

Whether it is taken seriously or not Kaballah is the key to understanding the Phoenix interpretation and through it you find out that Phoenix represents the Crown. It is a state of consciousness.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Whether it is taken seriously or not Kaballah is the key to understanding the Phoenix interpretation and through it you find out that Phoenix represents the Crown. It is a state of consciousness.

Its drivel and your not 40 so you know nothing about the Kabbalah 🙂

Originally posted by Mindship
I would even broaden that statement: generally most people don't take a mystical perspective seriously because we don't live in "those kinda times."

Didn't we have a similar discussion like this once before? You and I come from different polarities, so to speak, but still it was one of the best mental workouts I'd had online in a long while. 🙂

yes we did but its been fringist for 200 years 🙂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Whether it is taken seriously or not Kaballah is the key to understanding the Phoenix interpretation and through it you find out that Phoenix represents the Crown. It is a state of consciousness.

I am inclined to agree, at least with a general mystical/archetypal interpretation. This is my preference for understanding what Marvel means by the Phoenix Force. Who in Marvel introduced this, and around what year? I'm just wondering if -- or how much -- Stan Lee had a part in it, since he is Jewish.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Its drivel and your not 40 so you know nothing about the Kabbalah 🙂

Neither are you but your kaballah related posts suggest that rule may need a little re-working. 😮

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Neither are you but your kaballah related posts suggest that rule may need a little re-working. 😮

🙂 no need to be embarressed I know the Kabbalah has not been a part of mainstream Judaism for 200 years hence the terms kabbalistic when applied to maigc etc, its tosh - you also realise its not a hieracrhy as you make out - thats one of the biggest mistakes people make with it.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
yes we did but its been fringist for 200 years 🙂

Yeah. For about as long as America has been around, or broadly speaking, the Industrial Revolution. Both proved vastly superior to improving the material/day-to-day well-being of whole populations much better than praying for bread on yer table.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
🙂 no need to be embarressed I know the Kabbalah has not been a part of mainstream Judaism for 200 years hence the terms kabbalistic when applied to maigc etc, its tosh - you also realise its not a hieracrhy as you make out - thats one of the biggest mistakes people make with it.

Ive never made it out to be a hierarchy. Ive only been highlighting Phoenixes connection to the supreme being as shown via the kaballah interpretation of the character.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Its drivel and your not 40 so you know nothing about the Kabbalah 🙂
How old are you?

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Ive never made it out to be a hierarchy. Ive only been highlighting Phoenixes connection to the supreme being as shown via the kaballah interpretation of the character.

you constantly talk about the Crown being above the others thats not quite true is it? 🙂

Originally posted by Creshosk
How old are you?

not 40 but ...............

Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah. For about as long as America has been around, or broadly speaking, the Industrial Revolution. Both proved vastly superior to improving the material/day-to-day well-being of whole populations much better than praying for bread on yer table.

indeed - magic does not work

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
you constantly talk about the Crown being above the others thats not quite true is it? 🙂

Not above other aspects no.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Not above other aspects no.

Exactly, so the Phoenix is no more powerful than 12 other things even in your interpretation 🙂

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Exactly, so the Phoenix is no more powerful than 12 other things even in your interpretation 🙂

But the Crown contains all of the other spheres by definiton it encompasses them all and Marvels interpretation as aforementioned is a botch job.

Is it not possible that Marvel adapted some aspects of mystical/Kabbalistic thinking for its Phoenix Force story elements? I doubt Marvel was covertly pushing Kabbalah, per se, in its comics. Probably someone (Stan Lee??) said, "Hey this would be cool for a character. Let's use this stuff," and took some ideas from column A, others from column B, and <poof> new character or power level to one-upmanship either a previous Marvel story or what DC was doing. No?

Originally posted by Mindship
Is it not possible that Marvel adapted some aspects of mystical/Kabbalistic thinking for its Phoenix Force story elements? I doubt Marvel was covertly pushing Kabbalah, per se, in its comics. Probably someone (Stan Lee??) said, "Hey this would be cool for a character. Let's use this stuff," and took some ideas from column A, others from column B, and <poof> new character or power level to one-upmanship either a previous Marvel story or what DC was doing. No?

Morrison indeed was trying to link the Kabbalah to Phoenix, he botched the job.

Reposted by the Whirly one

a friend of mine from another forum who is a comparative religions major wrote this.

in the interest of the poster's self-glorification, of course
>
>
> -Jean Grey, the mutant Yogi:
>
> OK, since this is, after all, a superhero comic, what follows may seem out of place. But don't underestimate Morrison's own pretentiousness
>
> In the last issue of the run, Cassandra says that "according to my Shi'ar files, the Phoenix consciousness accesses its host through the Chakra placed at the crown of the head" or something to that effect (I don't have the issues handy so I'm quoting from memory). This throwaway line is Morrison's main contribution to clearing up the Phoenix continuity.
>
> Chakra is the Sanskrit work for circular motion. According to Tantrism, a chakra is a spherical energy centre affected by everything around us. In Hindu Tantrism there are seven main chakras, while in Buddhist Tantrism there are five, all arrayed along the vertebral column. The chakras are supposed to be the points from which the "ethereal" vital energy of the astral body flows (the astral body, that trope from classic Marvel which Dr. Strange, Xavier and even Magneto are so keen to switch into).
>
> The chakra of the crown (top of the head) is called Sahasrara, and it resonates with the energy of wisdom, insight, and TRUTH. It is also referred to as "the many-petalled lotus".
>
> Tantrism tries to "open" the chakras, by making the passive, "earthly" energy situated at the lowest chakra (represented by the snake Kundalini) clamber up the spine. The hardest one to open is of course the uppermost one, the lotus. Jean's mutation, which would allow her to tap into the/a Phoenix entity, is that her chakras are open. That's "the mind over matter" thingy she herself identifies with telekinesis (when she addresses the U-men while stopping their onslaught against the X-mansion).
>
> For more superheroines with chakra-derived powers, see Multi-girl from Alan Moore's "Top 10". Or the issue from Moore's "Promethea" where Promethea has tantric sex with her magical mentor Jack Faust.
>
> (That mister Morrison tends to get so jerky when he refers to Moore's work may have to do with the fact that they are natural competitors, being interested in the same stuff and such. Moore's writing is better IMO, more human and accessible).
>
> So Jeannie has ultimate enlightenment built into her genome. That's why it's probably deliberate that Morrison writes her as "angelic"*. When the Phoenix appears, she waltzes around as an avenging angel, uncompromisingly truthful. That's all she tells Bishop during "Murder", and that's all she does when she interrupts Emma's psychic romp with Cyke. she peels away all the layers of armour and lies of the ice queen, revealing her flaws and therefore redeeming her: Emma admits that she's shallow, manipulative, and that she's in love. The execution is less than ideal and Emma remains pretty faithful to her bitchy self after that, but I find the concept is kinda touching.
>
> (* "seraphic", to be more specific. Seraphs are referred to as the most exalted angels of all, fiery spirits often depicted around the crowned Godhead. Since the serried ranks of Phoenixes (Phoenices?) from the last issue look a lot like a heavenly host of sorts, the "white Phoenix of the crown" thing may be a play on words).
>
> Once the Phoenix connects with her, Jean practically becomes the only diamond without flaws, the one character without doubts or fears. Jean White, as it is. Even when Mags bumps her off, the Phoenix remains "invictus". That's not too "relatable", but since in Morrison's run mutation/change is synonymous with conflict, I suppose he needed to place a character above the din of the struggle. You have to wrap up your run, you know.
>
> (BTW, Quentin turns/taps indeed into a Phoenix-like entity when he dies, feeding off the "humus" left in the wake of Kick overindulgence. That's why Xorn says "a flower of light is opening in your head". He could have said "a lotus of light" too).
>
> -Why the run feels so disjointed:
>
> OK, she's not supposed to be omniscient, and yet, if Jean is so swell, how come she does not uncover Sublime's little scam with her searing glance? The fact is that Morrison seems to realize his ominous wild card is too big for the stories he's telling, specially after "Imperial". The result is that Jean gets really little time on camera. That cheapens the love triangle with Scott and Emma.
>
> And that's the problem with the run seen as a whole. The motive of "thinking outside the box" is central in the stories, and yet, when taken to its logical extreme, leads (as a dying, transfigured Quentin says) to "rooms that are larger than the world". That's fine and dandy in another context (the Invisibles, for example), but it does not gel all too well with X-corp, murder mysteries and restive teenagers. For the sake of closure, Morrison drops the ball on the motives he has established early on and shortchanges the reader by enacting a cosmic endgame where everybody discards their masks and very additional depth is gained in exchange.
>
> (As for the cosmic endgame: the idea of Jean as deluded servant of the Beast and victorious Phoenix resembles Promethea's double role as Babylonian whore and angel of Judgement Day. Again, Moore and Morrison share the same niche).
>
> There's no real crescendo leading up to the apocalyptic finale. Morrison wastes his biggest shot at the beginning, with Genosha's destruction*. The dissonance that is "Planet X" does not elicit a sense of foreboding or resolution, only of restlessness, and any dramatic effect it aims for is tarnished by indulgent parody and the shoddiness of "Assault on weapon plus".
>
> (*The giant sentinels are a variation of the hoary old motive of machine development outstripping biological evolution. Perhaps because it is regarded as "vulgar", the idea is only dealt with cursorily afterwards, in the form of nano-sentinels, E.V.A. etc.)
>
> -Diamonds are forever?
>
> I end up feeling that Morrison's run is, well, quite flawed. But it does shine at places, and it has piqued my interest in a franchise I'd always found too commercial and convoluted. Cassaday on art OTOH is 90% of an automatic purchase for me, so I'll be checking out "astonishing".

That was excellent, lurker. See, one of the biggest problems I've had with Morrison's run isn't Morrison, but his fanatic followers "interpreting" Morrison in the X-books, pulling nonsense out of their rear-ends, *oh, Grant means this,* and *Grant believes in this,so it must equal that*. Morrison DID have some symbolic content, as you so expertly point out, and he did have some shining moments, and he did put together some interesting ideas, but I'd say 50% of what his followers are claiming is some great multi-layered "meta-text" is BS. Or, rather, a lot of what Morrison apparently started to portray and tried to make multi-layered, didn't work, for many of the reasons you outline above.

Your analysis of how Morrison tripped himself up in "Planet X" for example, according to what I've heard, is right on the money. I would only add that there was a measure of "shoddiness" about "Planet X" as well, and blaming everything on Kick/Sublime doesn't solve the problem.

What you outline is exactly what I have to give MOrrison credit for. His use of the Chakras, his use of Biblical symoblism. Give Claremont credit for introducing the Phoenix as fiery angel and Tiphereth of the Sephiroth (and the solar plexus chakra). Morrison botched the connection to the kabbalah, and I really laugh when I read fans trying to piece that one together. As you say, Moore did a much more exact, careful, and insightful job of merging the paths of the tree of life, the ladies of the major arcana, and the chakras. In other words, when Morrison gives some thought and time to the symmetry and synchronicity of his symbols and meanings in his stories, he's good. WHen he makes a half-assed effort, or makes a superficial attempt to throw symbols together, putting plot and character second, he falls flat on his face. In my opinion, of course.

Several other forums went throuoght the same stuff 🙂