Jump to content

Talk:Kabbalah/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Has no one noticed that the opening of the article does not actually explain what Kabbalah is?

The Torah

I added The Torah to the primary texts portion of the Kabbalah page, because it is a crucial text for all kabbalists. The Torah came before all other writings associated with the Kabbalah, and is at the root of the tradition. Even kabbalists who try to disassociate themselves from the Jewish aspects, can see the significance of the text.Jmshaw

I removed the primary text portion under the "specific errors" portion of the discussion board, because I added it to the page.Jmshaw

Specific errors

Listing some specific errors might be helpful. I have a few to add.--Blackh 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The Purpose of Kabbalah--Why Do We Need It?: Not even once is it mentioned that people turn to the Kabbalah in order to find the meaning of life, to understand the purpose of their existence, and to attain complete realization as a human being.DAVIDY
  • The Origin of Kabbalah: While this is not a huge criticism, there seems to be a significant amount of switching between Ashkanazi and Sephardic transliteration of the Hebrew (e.g.: Sepiroth and Sefirot). Considering that the rest of the article is written using a Sephardic pronunciation, and a more general move in spoken Hebrew in the same direction, I would suggest a general switch of the Ashkanazi to Sephardic transliterations. Taking the example I gave, if one did not know Hebrew, Sepiroth and Sefirot would seem to be very different words. Dastal 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The human soul in Kabbalah: In this section, neshamah is first described as a part of the soul that is "not implanted at birth, but can be developed over time." Written just below this, in its description, is "This part of the soul is provided both to Jew and non-Jew alike at birth"--Serf 16:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. "Crowley is not without critics". It might be more accurate to say something like "Crowley has been fiercely criticized and widely respected, often by the same people." though I'm sure it could be explained better than that.
  2. "Elphas Levi's works such as Transcendental Magic, heavily steeped in esoteric Kabbalah (rendering it very difficult to understand correctly; it is completely misunderstood by critics), agrees." This statement is pointless/ludicrous/confusing: How can Eliphas Levi disagree with Crowley when he lived before Crowley?
  3. This section needs to mention that there is a strong Hermetic Kabbalah tradition alive today, with such groups as the American Order of the Rosy Cross, Builders of the Adytum, Fraternitatis Lux Occulta, Servants of the Light, the Rosicrucian Fellowship, and various Golden Dawn groups, (and there are many more), all Kabbalistic and all with greater or lesser degrees of influence by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. These groups have been around much longer than the Kabbalah Centre.
  4. This section does not convey the fact that Hermetic Kabbalah is about 500 years old. Much good stuff is covered, but the Rosicrucian and Masonic influence could be expanded upon.
  • Dualism: There's about a page of text about Kabbalah potentially leading to dualism and pantheism. But surely Kabbalah is the very antithesis of dualism! Surely that is the whole point of the doctrine of the Ein Sof, and the Kabbalistic doctrine of evil, these two being among the few doctrines all Kabbalists would agree on. Another illustration of how Kabbalah emphasizes non-dualism is the formula Unity(13) + Love(13) = God(26). I could go on. At the very least this subject should not get the prominence it does. Of course it is right to list the fact of such criticisms if they have historic significance.--Blackh 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sefirot: This section is fairly good, but some nit-picks: There is disagreement among Kabbalists about whether sefirot are emanations, and indeed what the nature of them is. This could be expanded on. It would also be helpful to use the term "numerations" at least somewhere, since this is what "sefirot" means.--Blackh 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. "However, most other Jews who believe in Kabbalah hold that there is an aspect of God that is revealed to the world." Eh? Every Kabbalist holds that there is an aspect of God that is revealed to the world! They have a name for it, too - It's called "Malkuth". And it should really say "...most other Kabbalists/Kabbalistic writers".
  2. "Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but complement one another." It would be far more accurate to say that Kabbalists believe these aspects are inseparable.
  • Holy letters: There is some mention of the Sefer Yezirah doctrine that the Holy One created the Universe by means of the 22 Hebrew letters, but this is an important doctrine which warrants a bit more coverage.--Blackh 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Theodicy: explanation for the existence of evil: The division between the general Kabbalistic doctrine of evil, and the doctrine of the Qlippoth is correct, but first one is not explained very well. Ask any Kabbalist.--Blackh 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

great article

head towards featurage?

Traditional disclaimer

In a book I reciently got on Kabbalah the preface ends with

Finally it must be stated, in concordance with a strict Kaballistic rule, that this exposition represents one man's comprehension of a living tradition as it exists in the world today.

I quite like this as it emphesises both the subjectivity of an author and the fact that the Kabbalah is not fixed thing. I feel it would be both informative and respectful of the tradition to include a brief section on this. --Salix alba (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer

What's with the Berg ad?--Aleph1 22:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Removed

I have removed the following text because it is badly written, lacks NPOV and offers no sources. Morgan Leigh 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But some adherents of the Kabbalah believe the origin of Kabbalah begins with the

THE INVERTED KABBALAH:

The Kabbalah is said to be a Hebrew magik system of great power, Moses from the stories of the Torah or also known as Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch, used this power of the Kabbalah to escape from the persueing Egyptian army.


But the origins of the Kabbalah are in fact an Egyptian created magik system. The birth of Moses occurred at a time when the current Egyptian monarch had commanded that all male children born to Hebrew captives should be killed by drowning in the Nile River. The Torah leaves the identity of this Pharaoh unstated, but he is widely believed to be Ramses II; other, earlier pharaohs have also been suggested including a Hyksos pharaoh or one shortly after the Hyksos had been expelled. Jochebed, the wife (and paternal aunt) of the Levite Amram, bore a son, and kept him concealed for three months. When she could keep him hidden no longer, rather than deliver him to be killed she set him adrift on the Nile river in a small craft of bulrushes coated in pitch. The daughter of Pharaoh discovered the baby and adopted him as her son, and named him "Moses" (Which means "to draw out"). By Biblical account, Moses' sister Miriam observed the progress of the tiny boat. Miriam then asked Pharoah's daughter if she would like a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby. Thereafter, Jochebed was employed as the child's nurse, and he grew and was brought to Pharaoh's daughter and became her son. Being the son of the Pharaoh's daughter, Moses was given the highest of education, with the access to gain knowledge and study what he wished. Moses would be educated in the Egyptian magik arts by the High Priests of the temples and grew to become a gifted student.


When the Hebrews emigrated (as in the exodus) from Egypt during the XIX Dynasty, they raided the Priests Temples and took with them a number of things including a caricature of Set and the original scripts of the Kabbalah.


Here is an example of the Kabbalah in work used by the Egyptian High Priest Magik user Zazamankh:


>From the Ancient Egyptian text The Golden Lotus


Then Zazamankh stood at the stern of the Royal Boat and began to chant great spells and words of power. And presently he held out his wand over the water, and the lake parted as if apiece had been cut out of it with a great sword. The lake here was twenty feet deep, and the piece of water that the magician moved rose up and set itself upon the surface of the lake so that there was a cliff of water on that side forty feet high.

Now the Royal Boat slid gently down into the great cleft in the lake until it rested on the bottom. On the side towards the forty-foot cliff of water there was a great open space where the bottom of the lake lay uncovered, as firm and dry as the land itself.


And there, just below the stern of the Royal Boat, lay the golden lotus.


With a cry of joy the maiden who had lost it sprang over the side on to the firm ground, picked it up and set it once more in her hair. Then she climbed swiftly back into the Royal Boat and took the steering oar into her hands once more.


Zazamankh slowly lowered his rod, and the Royal Boat slid up the side of the water until it was level with the surface once more. Then at another word of power, and as if drawn by the magician's rod, the great piece of water slid back into place, and the evening breeze rippled the still surface of the lake as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. But the heart of Pharaoh Seneferu rejoiced and was filled with wonder, and he cried: 'Zazamankh, my brother, you are the greatest and wisest of magicians!


Moses adapted the Kabbalah to serve his prepose and created the Hebrew Kabbalah most people know of today. The are many systems of the Kabbalah today including:

Lurianic Kabbalah

Sabbatean Kabbalah

A lot of magik systems today have embraced and adapted the Kabbalah System and built off it to create there own. The INVERTED KABBALAH is removing the Jewish/Christian/Islamic attachment to the system and bringing back and making the Egyptian/Setian or Satanism the entire element of the system.

I removed this External Link because it's in Spanish. Could someone put it in the correct location in Spanish Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, it seems a high quality link.

--Haldrik 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Simo Parpola. Who is he?

Do any Jewish researchers of Kabbalah accept the findings of this Simi Parpola? How have people in the field responded to his claims? What is his field of research? What is his background in this subject? RK 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Parpola is a respected Assyrianologist Sons of God - The Ideology of Assyian Kingship. Objections to his theory (besides the general skepticism noted in the Origins section) include the universality of the world-tree myth and the absence of structural similarity to the Kabbalistic TOL. The first mention of "sephirot" in Hebrew is the SY, which does predate medieval Kabbalah considerably but the Origins section gives too much space to a fringe idea, imo. It needs more Scholem: Origins of the Kabbalah, content-wise. --Aleph1 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Error: "....creating the first Jewish nation..."

"This is the greatest miracle of the exodus of the Hebrews which led to the receiving of the Ten Commandments and the acceptance of the Torah at Mount Sinai creating the first Jewish nation approximately three hundred years before King Saul."


These commands were given to Israel, not just to Judah.

Exo 1:1 And these were the names of the sons of Israel who came into Egypt with Jacob; they each one came in with his house: Exo 1:2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Exo 1:3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin, Exo 1:4 Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Exo 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls, Joseph being in Egypt.

It's a common misconception that the 10 commandments, holy days, dietary laws, etc., were commanded only for the Jews.

Further validation of this can be found in Ex. 28

Verse 1: Aaron and his sons are taken "from among the sons of Israel"

The names of the 12 sons of Israel, including but not exclusively Judah, are engraved on two onyx stones (Ex. 28:9-12)

That the laws were given and intended to be kept by all of Israel, not just Jews, is evident in Ex. 28:12 & 21

Exo 28:12 And you shall put the two stones on the shoulderpieces of the ephod, stones of remembrance FOR THE SONS OF ISRAEL. And Aaron shall bear THEIR names before the face of the Lord, on his two shoulders for a remembrance.

Exo 28:21 And the stones shall be according to the names of the sons of Israel, TWELVE according to their names, the engraving of a signet; they shall be each according to his name for the TWELVE tribes.

When we read Biblical history and prophecy an understand both that Israel does not mean only Jews (and often does not mean Judah at all), AND who the modern tribes of Israel are, it gives you quite a different sense of the Bible.

How this is useful

Another Fictional Representation

I'm not sure how to edit the wiki without messing it up, so I'll just post here and hope somebody adds it.

In the book "Dante's Equation" by Jane Jensen, characters travel between various worlds that have varying degrees of good and evil. (Imagine a line where 100% good is on one end, 100% evil on the other. The various worlds lie in different places and the world changes as such). It's been a little bit since I've read it. Here's the amazon.com page about it.

Taken from:http://www.amazon.com/Dantes-Equation-Jane-Jensen/dp/0345430379/sr=8-1/qid=1160370377/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3526085-4972051?ie=UTF8&s=books

Hopefully some of that is usable.

This article is far too long

It's so long (at 85K) that it's downright painful to read. Can some of the content be cut? Probably much of the content is in other associated articles already.--A bit iffy 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there should at least be a separate article on History of Kabbalah. (Antonio.sierra 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Why is this book relevant to Kabala?

  • John W. McGinley, 'The Written' as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly; ISBN: 0-595-40488-X

Why is the book relevant to Kabala? The reviews of the book are outright non-explanitory, couched in Derida's evasive doublespeak. If the book is relevant, explain why. If not, it needs to be deleted from the article. --Haldrik 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This book seems to work better as a footnote to a point being made in an article, rather than as a stand alone source in the bibliography. --Haldrik 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Also, the word 'esoteric' is used far too much.

Analogy with physics needs cleaning

I find the whole section 'Ten Sefirot and physical sciences' fairly dodgy. It has to be made much clearer that the analogies made with physics are made by followers of the faith and have no scientific base. The first sentence 'Notable is the similarity between the concept in Kabbalah that the physical universe is made of Divine Light, and the modern concept in Physics that it is made of energy.' needs a quote (ie we need to know who says that), because indeed the similarity is neither notable nor scientifically sound. Same thing for 'Some students of Kabbalah suggest': it needs a proper citation. And again for the last sentence, 'The Ten Sefirot are sometimes mentioned in the context of the Ten Dimensions...', we need to know by whom they are being compared to String Theory. There's no problem mentionning that some followers of Kabbalah make these comparisons, but it has to be made perfectly clear that this has no scientific base whatsoever. --Pageva 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article seems trivia

The problem with this long article is manifold:

1. The Kabbalah as such is only explained after many other things were said that are much less important. In the first paragraphs, it must be stated what the Kabbalah is, how it looks like, that is is composed of 4 worlds and ten Sephirot, that it has two arms, etc. All this things. I won't go into detail. You get the point.

2. The explanation on the Qliphoth is muddy and not exact.

3. History is all right; Madonna and the Kabbalah Center have absolutely nothing to do here.

4. The most important aspect of Kabbalah has to do with the contemplation of the tree and its Sephirot, not anything you could possibly read about them. First you go "into" the Kabbalah, "travel" the Kabbalah and learn from direct approach to it. That is, you learn by revelation, by deep contemplation and extreme care and respect to what you "meet". The Kabbalah "happens" to you and transforms you. You have got to learn about the nature of things. The nature of things is understood in always deeper fashion from Sephirah to Sephirah, and it is extremely hard to walk this path. THAT is important. Conjectures and interpretations are just part of the voyage, if you want, as long as you are learning. But the Kabbalah was the same when Moses crossed the desert and in the Dark Ages and even now. Maybe from an historical view more and more has been learned about the Kabbalah, no doubt about that. But the Kabbalah itself has not changed. Nothing has been said about that, and that's why nothing has being said about the nature of Kabbalah. All that is written concerns only what we know about the Kabbalah, how we see it historically, how others interpret it, etc. It never really touches the meat of the subject.

5. Kabbalah is not theology and/or theosophy or things of the kind. You don't "discuss" Kabbalah argumentatively. Kabbalah is not modern science. It should be explained that it is not that to be true to its nature. Discussions arise to *undestand* it, not to doubt if it's right or wrong or theorize about it. The reason is simple: if in doubt, you "enter" the Kabbalah and look for the answer yourself, and do not stand outside inducting about it. The Kabbalah is inside! There's nothing about this in the text either. There should be links that lead to pages of theological discussion and other matters around the Kabbalah.

5. A discussion of ideas from this or that writer is not very relevant, because every author will embrace different points of view. I think the general tone must be much more neutral and formal. Statements, not interpretations (See above).

6. Critism to the Kabbalah is not relevant to its explanation. It could be said that the Kabbalah is critized and briefly number the main arguments, with a link leading to the page where the matter is fully analysed. The same on Kabbalah vs. science.

7. This article doesn't follow a clear stream of concepts. It jumps and leaves a lot of points unfinished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.191.222 (talk • contribs)

You seem to be under the misconception that the Tree of Life constitutes the near entirety of Kabbalah, and that the Hermetic (or a similar) approach, including pathworking, is the only valid approach. You of course consider the approach you have learnt to be best, however this is an article about Kabbalah in general, not any single person's approach (see Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy). In this light, most of your points above don't really apply. Hollywood-style Kabbalah, for instance, has its rightful place in this article as a branch of Kabbalistic teaching, along with any other significant schools of thought that we may not necessarily agree with. There are many for whom Kabbalah is theology/theosophy, a subject for scholarly discussion.
I don't know which school of thought you're coming from, but you might consider editing the section that corresponds most closely to your school, to provide better detail on the structure of the tree, the method of exploration, etc. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Kabbalah is Mysticism

From Scholem (1974 p.3):"Kabbalah is the traditional and most commonly used term for the esoteric teachings of Judaism and for Jewish mysticism, especially the forms which it assumed in the Middle Ages from the 12th century onward..."

What's your hang-up with spirituality? Dfass 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholem pioneered the secular the study of the History of Kabala, but he is an outdated scholar. Similar to Freud. Scholars have done work since him. --Haldrik 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
So nu, let's hear who these scholars are. What is the source for claiming that kabbalah=spirituality? This implies that the vast majority of rabbinical figures, who were not kabbalists, had no spirituality. It also implies that prior to development of the kabbalah (earliest known works of which date to the talmudic period), there was no Jewish spirituality. I cannot think of anything more in error. So unless you have good sources that identify kabbalah with spirituality, and can cite these, I think we should go with the traditional view that kabbalah=Jewish mysticism. I've surveyed some of the scholarship on kabbalah, and I have yet to see anyone with a more encyclopedic knowledge on the topic that Scholem. But, again, let's see the cites, and then discuss... —Dfass 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Give me a day or two to get a chance to go thru some books. In the meantime, Scholem was never an "insider" of Kabbalah. In some cases, Scholem was surprisingly ignorant about basic Kabbalistic concepts. Moreover, Scholem personally met Ashlag and thought him to be of little importance. In fact, Ashlag was among the greatest kabbalists of that time, who the "insiders" of Kabbalah deeply respect. Very recently, Kabbalists themselves have begun disseminating information about Kabbalah to the public at large, so today's scholars have better access. --Haldrik 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Haldrik, I'll reserve judgment till I see what you've got. I hope it's not stuff from the Berg outfit, though.
As an outsider to this debate, Kabbalah is a system of spirituality, in that it recognises and pertains to the spirit (as well as the material, and in fact everything). It is also mysticism in that it deals with teachings and understandings that are not widely understood, including many which are ineffable. "Mysticism" seems like the most appropriate word, since it distinguishes Kabbalah from other non-mystical Jewish spiritualities (Judaism can also be described as "Jewish spirituality"!). It is a far more precise word. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Scholem was definitely a major scholar of Kabbalah but he wasn't a Kabbalist and was very shortsighted towards certain things in Kabbalah. Kabbalah is mysticism when we don't understand and experience it. Math, for example, is also mystical when we don't understand it and are not privy to it. Kabbalah is a system for realizing our full potential. Our Spiritual potential.
Just remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a recruitment brochure for aspiring Kabbalists. As such, a certain "detached" (I think here they call it "neutral") point of view is appropriate. Naturally, Scholem has an angle just like everyone else, but he was far more sympathetic to Kabbalah than any secular scholar prior to his time. From what I've seen in various sources, I would not say that Kabbalah is a system for realizing our potential (whatever that means). Most sources that I've seen seem primarily concerned with explaining God's relationship to the world. But again, I think that if we cite good sources (not Berg), we can all be happy.
I don't think the word "mysticism" means what you think it means, DAVIDY. Maths could not be described as mysticism, in any normal sense — nor does mystical refer to something "not yet understood". See the Mysticism article for an explanation of the word. You should see that the definition given there fits pretty-much perfectly with Kabbalah. It's certainly a much more useful word than spirituality, which describes almost any religion. Scientology, for instance, would claim itself to be a system for realizing our full potential, our Spiritual potential. So would Bahai'i, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and even several branches of Satanism. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please summarize what exactly is the benefit to someone on a physical and spiritual level of being an adherent to Kabbalah? I read the article and I either missed something or it was too vague for me to catch. I admit that I skimmed much of this massive article but I would appreciate some specific goals of Kabbalah. Thanks to anyone who helps on this. Jtpaladin 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree the goals are basically missing from the article, and I think the doctrine is not explained well at all. I agree that Kabbalah is mysticism. Perhaps if we can devise an explanation of the goal of Kabbalah that enough of us Kabbalists agree with, it can be put into the article. Here are some ideas to start the discussion off: The goal of Kabbalah is emphatically to redeem the world. Kabbalah includes a cosmology, which functions like a map of mental territory that lies beyond our normal way of thinking. This cosmology is held to describe an objective reality which can be experienced directly. A mental grasp of Kabbalistic cosmology allows a person to become more receptive to an experience of the "higher" reality that is described (Kabbalah means "reception"). This gradual process is considered to be a return to the Creator/the Garden of Eden. The process of return is held to be inevitable for all living beings. Kabbalah merely assists the process. Return to the Creator takes place while we are in our current body - It is not something that happens after we die. The primary purpose of our minds and bodies is to express mezla (divine influence) in Malkuth (the earthly plane). As we slowly come to experience the reality of God, the mind and body change so that their expressions become truer to the nature of the divine source of those expressions. In practical terms, the purpose of Kabbalah is nothing more than to be joyful and to express goodness and beauty. Blackh 12:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that info. Yes, I agree, it would be better for the article if there was a section on goals of this religious faith that it would help people to understand Kabbalah better. Jtpaladin 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Question of the Unio Mystica in Jewish mysticism

There has been a big debate about whether an experience of union can be found in literally all mystical traditions, including Judaism (as Stace implies); or whether this experience is not found in Judaism. Should this debate not go here? Katz is the main thinker who denies that the unitive experience is found in Jewish mysticism, but later scholars have challenged him. ACEO 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial?

Aren't we exhibiting bias by labelling the Kabbalah Centre as "controversial"? What does the reader gain through such a label?

Saying that something is controversial is not biased. The adjective controversial simply means that something has generated controversy, which the Kabbalah Centre certainly has. It doesn't imply that the controversy is neccessarily valid. Also, please sign your posts. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages Thank you. Asarelah 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Jewish mysticism: spelling correction

Just changed "present" to "presence" in the part about an Angel and Moses during the parting of the Red Sea. Jtpaladin 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to split this article up

Without major opposition, I am going to split this article up in the next few days. I do not, however, know anything about the subject, so if someone else could do it I'd be much obliged.

Your thoughts?

Dave 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave,
While I appreciate your offer to split the article, I would advise cauthion if you aren't familiar with the subject. I am working on a seperate page for Hermetic Qabbalah but it is not yet ready to be put up. Once I have finished it the article will be shorter and then only the strictly Jewish Kabbalah material will remain. Perhaps then it will be easier to spit the article up further into topic areas.
Morgan Leigh 06:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Morgan - I'll leave it as is for the time being. Good luck and thanks for your efforts! Dave 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It remains that this article ought to be split up, or at least condensed. For now I'm putting split-apart on this page, so at least when someone comes by who actually knows the subject, they'll know what to do with it. Dextrose 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to split this article up - yet. There are many articles on diverse aspects of Kabbalah on Wiki, but this one attempts to keep to the mainstream and to a historical-cum-theoretical timeline. It's one of the articles I constantly read as a useful source of reference and as a hub to other Wiki pages on the theme. I'd suggest a thorough edit first(there are plenty of good suggestions above), but it'll take time. I do know quite a bit about Kabbalah, but would prefer to work with someone/a group on it. Any offers? Abafied 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Kabbalah?

Who here is into a wikiproject Kabbalah; if so, please leave me a message on my talk page especially if you want to help.Lighthead 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I suggest rewriting the intro. I'd suggest reducing the information about the traditional origins of the Kabbalah in the intro to a sentence, e.g. that its origins are traditionally attributed to Adam and is traditionally described as having been received and transmitted by the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Sages and made secret by the Sanhedrin. The intro should probably also have a sentence summarizing historical theories, and more information about its importance to contemporary Hassidic Judaism etc. I believe the current detail on the traditional approach to origins renders the intro non-NPOV, while attempting to add similar detail on other theories would make the intro unweildy. In general I recommend taking detail on disputed material out of the intro; disputes can be addressed in appropriate sections. However, I'd appreciate others' opinions before a rewrite effort. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Introduction, refering to Kabbalah: "It is a core and identifying spiritual text of Hassidic Judaism." But there is no actual core text called "Kabbalah". Kabbalah is a core TEACHING of Chassidic Judaism, not a core text. Perhaps this is referring to the Zohar, which is a (the) core kabbalistic text. A person not familiar with Kabbalah might waste time looking for a "text" that does not exist. Kwork 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed "text" to "teaching" per Kwork's suggestion. --Shirahadasha 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing/Splitting/Rewriting the article

I've made a start on some basic editing/proof-reading of the article - nothing that, as yet, alters the contents.

So far, it's become obvious that spellings, hyperlinks, footnoting and references, awkward and unclear phraseology need to be co-ordinated. That I can do over the next while.

The following step will be to conflate areas which have been duplicated, which probably means a new system of section heading on both the 'theory' and personalties of kabbalah, and along historical timelines. That will be one major part of the work and will take considerable time.

Finally, citations and references not already supplied, and new material, will need to be added in.

It's only at that stage that splitting up the article should be considered. That in itself will need considerable work of cross-referencing to other Wiki articles, updating those where necessary, and creating new pages.

Bear with me. It'll take months, and I'd be pleased to have comments/help on its progress.

On the other hand, the content of the article is mostly good and informative; it'd be a shame to lose any part of it to a quick edit. Abafied 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Work begun:

1. Some editing, co-ordination of spelling, hyperlinks and phraseology. More work to be done.

2. Reorganisation of textual material into 7 temporary sections. Some of these might become separate pages eventually, with links to and from the main Kabbalah page. More work to be done.

3. It's now obvious that the 'origins and 'history' sections are a mixture of history and theology, with some duplication and some contradictions; similarly with the 'concepts' section and 'criticism' section. All need additonal material. Investigate all Kabbalah/kabbalistic terms wiki pages because translation of Hebrew to English often renders different spellings. Other wiki pages will be needed; possibly also additional material. The 'primary texts' section can stand as it is, though it may need one or two more additions - could stand as a page on its own. The 'non-traditional' and 'non-Jewish' sections are sparse; both might evolve into pages of their own and/or content shifted to other existing wiki pages. Most of the work consists in regrouping this material without losing information.

4. Sections 8-12 are very full and cumbersome. Haven't yet thought of a strategy to improve these. Abafied 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As its the most straightforward, the section headed "Primary Texts" has been moved to a new page Kabbalah: Primary Texts. A link paragraph has been retained on the Kabbalah page. Set up a rough and temporary system of categorisation - History (more work needed); Primary Texts; Concepts (more work needed); Critiques (more work needed); Non-Traditional Kabbalah (more work needed). These can be refined later. Abafied 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved sub-section headed "Dispute" (on Haredim) from "Kabbalah: History, Origins: Judaic Mysticism; Dispute" to "Kabbalah: Critique; Critiques among Orthodox circles". Removed sub-heading "Dispute" because it was then redundant. Abafied 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Hermetic Qabalah may be a contender for being split into its own article; it is somewhat removed from mainstream Jewish Kabbalah. If I and another editor start trying to split that out would that be a good thing? Clearly this subject still shares many concepts with Jewish Kabbalah, and we would try to limit the amount of repetition, instead providing links to this and other related articles... Fuzzypeg☻ 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That'd be a good idea, Fuzzypeg, though the paras. in Kabbalah are still a useful introduction even if they themselves might need a re-write. I'd suggest leaving some paras. as in intro to QK in the Kabbalah Main Page. My specialism is Classical Kabbalah and the earlier periods (though I have some knowledge of the rest), so any help with post-Cordevero and post-Lurianic developments in all areas of Kabbalah would be appreciated. Abafied 12:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved 'The origins of the actual term Kabbalah are unknown and disputed to belong either to the Spanish philosopher, Iba Gabriol (1021 - 1058) or to the 13th century CE Spanish Kabbalist Bahya ben Asher. While other terms are used in many religious documents from C2nd CE till the present day, the term Kabbalah has become the main descriptive of Jewish esoteric knowledge and practices' from last para. of section, 'Use of Terms' to the header. It's more appropriate there. Abafied 15:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved 'During the early centuries of the first millennium CE, additional terms expanded Jewish esoteric knowledge; namely Chochmah Nistara (Hidden wisdom), Sitrey Torah (Hidden aspects of the Torah) or RaZey Torah (Torah secrets)' from last para. of 'Use of terms' to first para. of Talmudic Era: Mystical Doctrines and integrated it, cutting out only the duplication of terms. Abafied 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved 'According to most groups of Orthodox Judaismand among the Haredi, Kabbalah dates from Adam and is an integral part of the Jewish religious tradition. It is believed to have come down from a remote past as a revelation to elect Tzadikim ("righteous men"), and, for the most part, was preserved only by a privileged few. By contrast, contemporary scholarship suggests that various schools of Jewish esotericism arose at different periods of Jewish history, each reflecting not only prior forms of mysticism, but also the intellectual and culture milieu of that historical period. Questions of transmission, lineage, influence, and innovation vary and cannot be summarized in simple doctrinaire claims' from 'Origins: Adam' to become first para. of 'Origins: Judaic Mysticism' - more appropriate there. Deleted subsequent sub-heading under OJM, 'Use of Terms' - redundant. Abafied 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sub-section 'Claims for authority' moved from 'Kabbalah: History' to Kabbalah: Scholarship'. More appropriate as the section is about texts, rather than about the history of Kabbalah. Abafied 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added sub-section on "Christian Kabbalah", with a view to splitting the Kabbalah mainpage and creating a C.K. page. Abafied 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of Kabbalah page?

As far as I'm aware, this Kabbalah page is not (yet?) specifically for traditional Jewish Kabbalah. There is mention of K. and the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Non-traditional Jewish K. and Non-rabbinical K. There is a need for a paragraph on Christian K., to link to a new page on Christian Kabbalah.

For that reason and because it fits Wiki guidelines for splitting and style, I've deleted "This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah. For the western esoteric mystical tradition see Hermetic Qabalah" from the top of Kabbalah page, and reinserted into the Kabbalah page the first pararaph from the new Hermetic Qabalah page, put it under the sub-section "Kabbalah in non-Jewish societry" and added the the Main Page link to the Main Hermetic Qabalah page there, as:

Hermetic Qabalah -

Main article: Hermetic Qabalah

- Hermetic Qabbalah ( from the Hebrew קַבָּלָה "reception"), is a western, esoteric, mystical tradition which is a precursor to the neo-Pagan, Wiccan and New Age movements which draws on a great many influences, most notably; Jewish Kabbalah, western astrology, tarot, alchemy, pagan religions (especially Egyptian and Greco-roman), neoplatonism, gnosticism, the Enochian system of angelic magic of John Dee, hermeticism, rosicrucianism, freemasonry, and tantra. It differs from the Jewish form in being a more admittedly syncretistic system. However it shares many concepts with Jewish Kabbalah.Abafied 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Nice move. I am going to move the hermetic qabalah links there Sethie 07:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

undue emphasis

the overview of Hasidic Judaism vis a vis the teaching of AY Kook blatantly violates the rule of WP:UNDUE, as there were thousands of Hasidic leaders since the beginning of the movement, all of whom taught the Kabbala, and only one AY Kook. I don't mean to diminish his greatness, just to point out that his personage is not on a par with the entire Hasidic Judaism. Unless anyone has objections, I will edit that section shortly to reflect this difference. Yehoishophot Oliver 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. The section on the Modern Era is too partisan at present and could do with editing. Abafied 10:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Rappaport

I added a section on his view. I believe he also considers part of sefer yetzirah itself (after ch. 3) to be commentary and not source text. I can also expand on the explanation of the words Sefer, sappar, and Sippur, but I though it might go beyond the bounds of this type of article. I suppose we should make copies of this on other relevant pages (sefirot,sefer yetzirah) I will wait to see how it is received here first.Wolf2191 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

40 Years?

In the Overview section of the article it says, "In contemporary Orthodox Judaism, a person must be at least age 40, mature, and married to begin studying Kabbalah". This requirement no longer seems to apply...if it ever did. After all, the Arizal and the Ramchal both died before they even reached the age of 40, and they both (it seems) began study before they were married. I hesitate to change this on my own. Any comments? Kwork 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kkwork, In '65 an article in PARADE magazine included in the NYT stated that a Jewish male over forty who had memorized Torah! and read all the Talmud could apply to be told what the individual symbols(alphabet characters) meant. They were Hieroglyphs, spiritual glyphs. English "spirit" is defined as the non-material part of man--intuition and intellect. He would be taught if he agreed not to speak about it till he was "50." Carlo Suarez in CYPHER OF GENESIS comments that 40 and 50 have allegorical significance as do all numbers. In the New Testament Pharisees are quoted as asking Jesus, "why are you speaking of these things and you are not yet 50." Johnshoemaker (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

kabalah revealed

this might be a good vid to add to the links page?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1032618372088794051&q=Kabbalah+Revealed&total=53&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

81.154.74.189 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish Kabbalah

I have restored, at the top of the article, its designation as "traditional Jewish Kabbalah", because that is what the article is. Since there seem to be no existing articles for "Christian Cabalah", or "Orthodox Christian Cabala", I will eventually create them and move those sections there. Kwork 10:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no discussion/objection, I moved them to their own pages. Kwork 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Abafied, going through the history of this article, and the rewrite you have done, it seems to me that the article - that was once mostly accurate but in need of additional sourcing - has now become an article with more inaccuracies, a lot of Original Research, and almost no Sourcing at all. I hope that it can be improved. It almost seems that it would be better if the article were reverted. Kwork 18:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, There has, as yet, been no rewrite. I re-arranged the existing material into specific categories, keeping the original sources and references, without deletion. I did add the short piece on Christian Kabbalah which you've now moved, and moved the section on Kabbalistic literature to its own page. Yes, the whole article does need more sourcing and citations. Abafied 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not my impression. In any case, traditional Jewish Kabbalah is a complex and difficult subject. Instead of trying to edit a subject that you don't understand well enough, why not contribute to other articles that are inside your area of expertise? Even thought Jewish Kabbalah is a tradition I love, I hesitate to do much editing on this article, beyond removing those parts that clearly do not belong, for fear of being in error. Kwork 12:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Then your impression is wrong. Further, do not issue directives based on your assumptions.
This article needs more sourcing and citations. Would you like to contribute to that? It also needs additions. For instance, there is no reference other than a link to the 4 Worlds of Emanation, as important in Kabbalah as is a description of the Sephirot. There is, further, very little reference to pre-Lurianic work on Emanation - Solomon ibn Gabirol on the Divine Will in his "Fons Vitae", being just one example of the discussions, exegesis and counter-exegesis that took place in the 10th-13th centuries. In addition, the section on scholarship into Kabbalah, ancient and modern, very much needs rewriting and sourcing. What little there is on Hekhalot, Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkevah makes little sense to non-kabbalists; nor is there reference to current work being conducted on early Jewish mysticism at, i.e., St Andrew's University, Tel Aviv Uni. or the Hebrew Uni., Jerusalem. There is nothing on the disputes about Platonism and the doctrine of Emanation, the Alexandrian influences, nor Philo, nor the Kalonymides, including the Rokeach, nor on the inner gnosis necessary for the practice of Kabbalah. Not terribly comprehensive, the article, even in regard to Judaic Kabbalah, is it?
The present article needs to be a core article referring and/or linking to all aspects of Kabbalah.
Further, even taking into account the short while since the article has been regraded as a WikiProject, the heading of the article is still "Kabbalah" - the general term - not "Lurianic Kabbalah" nor "Traditional Jewish Kabbalah." It would help if that was clearly understood.
Abafied 10:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Practical applications and Divination and clairvoyance

These two sections of the article deal with what is called Kabbalah Ma'asit. Every Kabbalistic rabbi that I have ever spoken to has said that Ma'asit is forbidden, and I think it does not need more than a link in this article. All the interest for it comes from Hermetic Kabbalists, so I will eventually move these to their own article. This will also shorten this very long article a little more. Kwork 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kabbalah in film and fiction

This section seems to contain mostly (if not all) items that would be of more interest to Hermetic Kabbalists. Perhaps it would be best to move this section to the Hermetic Kabbalah article. Kwork 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The only two I can see that clearly relate to Hermetic Qabalah are Foucault's Pendulum and Promethea. Feel free to move those if you wish. I would suggest deleting items that don't seem particularly notable. So many of them are just exploiting anything mysterious-sounding, and their entries don't display much knowledge of, or relevance to, Kabbalah. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The recently added link from WWW.ROOTLIGHT.COM is unacceptable and must be removed.

Kabbalah Centre?

I do not see why there is a separate heading, and section of the article, for the Kabbalah Centre. Bnei Baruch and the Chabad Chassidim also are involved in large scale efforts to bring Kabbalah to a wider public (and and they do not charge money for their training). I will soon remove the Kabbalah Centre section of the article if I do not hear a good explanation for why it deserves to be there under a separate heading. Kwork 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this, also since it was written in an essay style that bordered on POV. It has its own article, and any controversy can be discussed there. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Kabbalah: Gnosticism

This section of the article does not give a single source that ties Kabbalah with Gnosticism. If good sources are not added I will soon remove it. Kwork 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Key of Solomon is both a gnostic work because of numerous eons(angels) as well as connections to highier realms or kingdoms.

I have removed this section (hope I haven't been too hasty), since it reads as an unsourced essay (i.e. original research). The links suggested between Kabbalah and Gnosticism seemed circumstantial only. Needs supporting research.
This highlights a problem with the entire "Critique" section. Whose critique is this? We aren't at liberty here to present our own opinions and analyses; if there isn't a reliable, attributable source who makes these critiques, then they shouldn't be in the article; if there is such a source (or better, sources) then they should be clearly cited. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Why was the section on Gnosticism and Kabbalah removed? I don't know who wrote the Wiki. entry, but if either of you had read it and checked with the online 1911 Jewish Encyclopedia, you would have seen that it had used the article there as its source. Before I went on holiday, I had made a plea not to delete material until sources had been checked. Abafied 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with sourcing does not end with the "Critique" section. The entire article, as it now stands, is unsourced. It seems to me that I can remember that an earlier version of the article had better sourcing. If my memory is correct, it might be better to revert to that earlier version. Kwork 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You are relying on faulty memory. The sourcing of the article is the same now as it was before I organised the material into categories. The section on "Critique" has been unsourced since it went up. Would you like to help tracing sources before there are any more deletions? Editing is not a cut-and-slash job, which is why I formerly stated that this project would take months to do. Abafied 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Film and fiction

There is no reason to remove this section. Kariteh 14:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I said that I was planing to remove that section days ago in Talk. If you objected, you should have said so there, instead of reverting the change as you did. If you find that list important, you should create a new article for it and link to the Kabbalah article. But there is nothing in that list that relates to traditional Jewish Kabbalah...which is the stated subject of the article. Kwork 14:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that there is not deadline. I didn't say so before because I simply haven't seen the discussion, and it's not a crime, is it? Besides, please also remember that nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. If the section is not relevant in the Kabbalah article but is relevant somewhere else, then move it, don't delete it. This is precisely what you suggested on the talk page, yet that's not what you did. I strive to assume good faith on your part, but it seems it is slightly difficult to continue. Kariteh 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The list certainly has value, but it does not fit the subject: This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah. For other western Kabbalistic and esoteric mystical traditions see Hermetic Qabalah, Christian Kabbalah, Emanation: Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Kabbalah Ma'asit The article is quite long, and there are some sections that could benefit from expanding, so I have been removing those sections that do not fit in the article. The list of films and books is just one of a number of things removed. It is not a value judgment on the list, but it just does not belong here. I had hoped that by saying what I inteded to do, item by item, in Talk, that this sort of confrontation could be avoided. Kwork 14:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop taking this off-topic argument as an excuse. I had hoped to avoid this sort of silly confrontation too, but you clearly were and are biased. You keep on claiming that it's off-topic here and that it would be more relevant in Hermetic Qabalah, yet you also kept on deleting the entire section instead of moving it to the Hermetic Qabalah article, even though you were the one who suggested the move. In any case, I moved the section myself now. You say something and you do something else... Is it so hard to be polite and honest around here? Shish... Kariteh 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those who find this pop culture list, "Film and fiction", of interest should find a suitable new home for it. This article is about Jewish Kabbalah, a subject that many religious Jews consider Torah. There is nothing on the list that deals with Kabbalah as a part of religious Judaism, so it does not belong here. I had thought that the list might find a home in the Hermetic Kabbalah article, but the editors of that article have also rejected it. The list should not be in this article just because the person who created it can not think of a better place to put it. Kwork 12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"This article is about Jewish Kabbalah". This article is now about Judaic Kabbalah. When I first came across the article some years ago, it was about generic Kabbalah; someone has removed the early quotes from the discussion page about keeping the generic quality. However, the article is now about Judaic Kabbalah: Wiki. needs that, as well as links in this article to the other forms. Rather than just remove sections wholesale, it might equally be appropriate for you to contribute to sourcing and citing what is up, where needed. Would you care to do so? Abafied 10:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


I tried to improve this article a little by making it more focused. If you think something more general on the subject of Kabbalah is needed, there is no reason for you not to write it. 96.224.30.180 11:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What IS the Kabbalah?

With all due respect to the heavy editors of this article, I'd like to offer some criticism (in good faith, of course). What IS the Kabbalah? I've heard the word, and read the intro of this article, and skimmed the Overview section, but couldn't figure it out. I feel this should not be the case. I know what it literally translates as, but what IS it? Is it a book? A time period? A set of traditions? I recommend clarifying this early on, perhaps in the first sentence or so of this article. Starwarp2k2 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Gnosticism

As I understand it, a central teaching of Gnosticism is that this world is so evil that it could not have been created by God. That concept is as far removed from traditional Jewish Kabbalah as is possible. If you want to present a Gnostic version of Kabbalah, it might need its own article (which could be linked to this article). But it does not belong in this, already very long, article on Jewish Kabbalah. 96.224.30.180 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a "central teaching" of gnosticism. I think there were many gnostic sects, and what unites them is the idea of possessing "secret knowledge," not the content of that knowledge. —Dfass 14:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An external link I added today was removed. Was this seriously because of WP:EL or was that used as an excuse?

Why can there be an external links section for Jewish criticisms but not Christian criticisms?

Please tell me exactly what part of the WP:EL rules my external linking broke.

I would like to know so that if this is really a question of rules I can possibly fix it.

If it's personal then I know better than to bother stressing myself because I know how sleazy, lawyer-like and pedantic some wikipedians are to freely interpret rules to suit their whims and I have better things to do than get into a fight.

Sorry if I seem like I have a chip on my shoulder but it's because I do and I deal with this too often and frankly I am sick of it.

If it really is a question of rules as I said then please tell me what I can do to fix it and exactly what part of the rules you think I have broken.

Thank you.

(cur) (last) 20:56, 4 August 2007 Kariteh (Talk | contribs) (74,905 bytes) (Undid revision 149205854 by T B Pereira (talk) per WP:EL) (undo)

- Lusitano Transmontano 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I agree that the editor who removed the link may tend to be a bit heavy handed; but surely your surprise is somewhat disengenuous.
The other links you refer to bear direct relation to material regarding historical criticism of Kabbalah from within Orthodoxy that are inlcuded within the body of the article. The contents of those links are either framed by the voice of an objective narrator, or are clearly transcriptions of historical primary sources. The link you added, on the other hand, is unrelated to anything in this article, is just about exclusively polemical in nature, and contains much unsubstantiated conjecture. I too am no lawyer, but WP:EL does explicitly advise that we ought to avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."
What is highly relevent, then, to the cited Wikipedia guideline, is that the blog entry you linked seems to have been authored by you in the first place.
- John Lewis Bikorn

Introduction

As a person who knows nothing about Kabbalah, I found that the introductory paragraphs did not give the slightest hint towards answering the primary question "what is Kabbalah?". └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 23:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement here. I came here expecting to learn something. I know nothing about this topic so really can't contribute, but would really suggest someone sorts out this sentence:

"Precisely because it is by definition esoteric, no popular account (including an encyclopedia) can provide a complete, precise, and accurate explanation of the Kabbalah.[citation needed]"

This seems extremely defeatist, and to people who have come to this article expecting to find an explanation of the subject, will do nothing except stop them reading - and the fact template just makes it look a joke. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The introduction certainly needs more work. Kwork 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No. The entire article needs lots of work. It is unreadable. And if you try to read it, it makes no sense. And it does not distinguish between scholarly opinion and traditional outlook, instead jumbling the two. So we get a "history" of Kabbalah where "hitbonenut" in Eretz Canaan (!) precedes by 1.5+ millenia the medieval development of Kabbalah from the earlier Merkabah mysticism. But don't worry, the article will never get fixed because we're too sensitive to offend anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, unsigned. When I first came to editing this, I roughly categorised the article (it hadn't even that), noting exactly what you noted - the conflation of the tradition(s) and the scholarly and that the citations/bibliographies/references/links needed proper completion. I had intended to complete the exercise and do quite a bit of rewriting over a number of months. You will see some of the issues needing inclusion I noted upthread. I've given up on it due to the aggressive nature of Kwork. You can see the standard of his editing/knowledge by the current reference list - a complete mishmash, with only some credible references and those not necessarily noted in the bibliography. The article is a complete mess and it can stay that way, as far as I'm concerned. It's a pity, though; people with knowledge of the subject are being driven away by someone who has set himself up as the article's thought policeman. My time is better used elsewhere. abafied 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Abafied, "a complete mess and can stay that way." I would appreciate reading any order you could apply that would be available to the intellect. Mysticism porports to go beyond the intellect. Mystical tradition is non-intellectual thought habits. Torah is written in Hieroglyphs, spiritual glyphs, that are recognizable by thinkers. they are the elements of thought. The sixth, Waw or Vav is the human capability to interfertilize concepts----gasoline-motor-wheels-map---. In English the thought element is AND. Lower animals can't do it. Torah is thus an intellectual tract on the human spirit(non-material part of amn--intuition, intellect, feelings. Barnes and Nobel "Kaballah," "Traditionsl Kaballah," Masonic Kaballah and this article appear to be efforts to push readers "beyond the intellect" which will obscure the pure intellectual truths in Torah and lend support to the stories wrapped around Torah as garments. Belief in mysticism justifies ignorance of the elements 4.253.130.64 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC
Thanks Malcolm Schosha for the effort, but, sadly, your adjustment did not make this message more readable.

History

"The proper protocol for teaching this wisdom, as well as many of its concepts, are recorded in the Talmud, Tractate Hagigah, Ch.2."

I suggest revising this statement to: "According to Talmudic Judaism, the proper protocol for teaching this wisdom, as well as many of its concepts, are recorded in the Talmud, Tractate Hagigah, Ch.2.

Does anyone object? DAVIDY (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Critique

Dualism

 I would like to say that this is not an  entirely true statement.

"According to Kabbalists, humans cannot yet understand the infinity of God. Rather, there is God as revealed to humans (corresponding to Zeir Anpin), and the rest of the infinity of God as remaining hidden from human experience (corresponding to Arich Anpin [15])". First of all, human beings have the potential to become Zeir Anpin, they are not aware of Zeir Anpin to begin with. When reaching that state the aspirant can continue to develop and reach the state of Arikh Anpin. All of these states are part of the human Mind(by mind I don't mean something local, physical, or bounded). The Mind is Ain Sof. An all encompassing Unity which is neither real nor unreal. Why real nor Unreal? Because if we choose to say that Ain Sof is either real or unreal, we reafy with it being real or unreal. It becomes an object to fixate upon. We don't want that because a Kabbalist wants to disidentify from all fixations. The reason why Kabbalists often speak in a dualistic fashion is because they always wanted to protect themselves from the authorities(who were not privy to Kabbalah very often), or they wanted to hide their teachings from the masses. The Talmud says one should not investigate into the nature of the Divine one can only investigate that which manifests from it. Why does the Talmud say this? It doesn't want most people to think in a non-dual fashion and to understand that Ain Sof is nothing other than the Mind. It wants people to believe in a Creator. For this Halakhic reason it says in the Etz Hayyim "Beyond this point we can investigate no more". Those who are very learned in the subject, can understand that throughout the text the nature of Ain Sof is being investigated, but in an implicit fashion. So they bring out the Halakhic rule(to defend themselves), and then they themselves disregard it. Kabbalah is absolutely non-dual for those who can understand. I suggest revising this. Also, the source from where the citation came from is not a viable source for a Wikipedia article.DAVIDY 02:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that certainly clears up everything. We should include it in the "Critique: Dualism" section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.64.233 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Importance of Studying Kabbalah

The article has information on various criticisms of Kabbalah, but does not have much referenced and quoted information on the importance of studying and engaging in Kabbalah. We should add a title in the article called "On the Importance of Studying Kabbalah"DAVIDY (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My additions on the Spelling

"...Cabala, Kabbala, Kabala, Kabalah, Qabalah, or other spellings."

I just added a few more alternative spellings of "Kabblah". Sometimes when doing a internet search it helps to know the other spellings.

Are there more alternative spellings?

-Bill

Dec 21, 2007

Moved from the introduction

However, Kaballah does not limit itself to the concepts found in the Torah but embraces a wide-ranging, expansive, and free-wheeling exploration of many concepts of God, divinity, the nature of existence, and the nature of Mankind in the universe.

Just as certain strains of Christian theology reject the literal meaning of the Bible in favor of finding symbolic meaning, so Kaballah similarly rejects Judaism as a literal religious system centered around worship in the temple in Jerusalem and pursues instead the mystical or symbolic meaning of God and Man's place in the universe. Whereas traditional Judaism is objectively defined by the Torah with meanings not up for debate, Kaballah represents a more individual exploration of the subjective meaning -- individually to each person -- of religion and God.

For example, a Kabballistic idea is that "Reality is influenced by our perspective" [1] - a thought which is entirely at odds with traditional views of the Hebrew Bible / Christian Old Testament. As another example, Kaballah considers energy centers within the body, viewing the heart as an energy center of the body. [2]

Kaballah's origins are found partly in the widespread Gnosticism movement which developed in the first millenium across many religions. The Gnostics encouraged a highly mystical, subjective exploration of religious ideas instead of taking religions at face value. Gnostics were attacked as a heresy among the early Christian church, but their influence touched many different religions.

I have moved the above four paragraphs from the Introduction because they seem to be original research; and, in any case, the Introduction seems to have gotten too long. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah: Diagrams

I have noticed that the section of the article called "Kabbalah: Diagrams" has nothing to say about any diagrams; but, rather, discusses the sefirot. If no one objects, I will change the heading to Sefirot. (It would be helpful to include some of the diagrams, but I do not know if there are any available that would not violate copyrights.) 96.224.29.99 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Move historical material

I think it would be good to move the historical material in this article to below the sections discussing kabbalistic concepts. The reason for the move being that most people coming to this article are probably looking primarily for information on ideas and meaning, and only secondarily for history. If there are objections to such a change, let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalistic tree of life colored to illustrate that it looks like cannabis

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Kabbalistic_tree_of_life_plus_hemp.png

Is this of use to this article? I am new to wikipedia and submitted this image for discussion on a couple other articles and they weren't interested. Probably because I'm still learning how to properly submit information for consideration. (But I can rhyme great =)

I believe it stands on it's own legs as noteworthy so I don't need a reference, but like I said, I'm new. I will cite Bob Marley if I have to, but that is pretty vague as he wasn't documented on this specific aspect of the matter, (to my knowledge, but maybe he was) but he did believe it was the tree of life. This view is a cultural norm for many small tribalesque societies including the pigmies of africa (says Carl Sagen, who I believe would strongly support me doing this). I know other users can find better/more references as well, so I think it would be great if a noted expert would take it off my hands.

As Dr. Masaru Emoto always says: Love and Gratitude --TaylorOliphant (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we could get along without it. Perhaps there are some stoners at the Hermetic Qabalah article who would be interested. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would hate for the controversial nature of the image to detract from the other messages of the Kabbalah. Thank you very much sir.

Also, I did add a link to it on the tiferet page after the paths from tiferet are listed (paragraph 5). I felt like that was the only use I could personally verify the integrity of since it is just an illustration of tiferets paths highlighted. I also added it to the Spiritual uses of cannabis page under the ancient hebriac header for obvious reasons. Feel free to let me know what you think as I will do whatever I can to accomodate this community. God Bless --TaylorOliphant (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kabbalah/Archive_2&oldid=1136863439"