Talk:Kabbalah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kabbalah is part of WikiProject Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
Kabbalah is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism.
Portal:Judaism
 Judaism Portal
If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:

Contents

[edit] Archived discussion

[edit] 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 of the Kabbalah, 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

[edit] 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)
  • Hermetic Kabbalah: A few problems here.--Blackh 09:04, 16 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)
  • Understanding of God: There are many things wrong with this section.--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.
  • Kabbalah Centre: The Kabbalah Centre is mentioned in two sections, which should be merged.--Blackh 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Done.--Samuel J. Howard 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gematria: Gematria, notariqon, etc, are not mentioned once!--Blackh 09:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)

[edit] great article

head towards featurage?

[edit] 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)

[edit] Disclaimer

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/b/Talk%7EKabbalah_df98.html"