Talk:Kabbalah/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Requests for additions

Could someone Jewish re-write this article?? PLEASE.

i hope i'm placing this comment in the right place. this is labelled as a discussion page. i'm not intentionally practicing vandalism, if i'm putting this in the wrong place. reportedly, there is also hermetic kabbalah, which is supposed to be considerably different than jewish kabbalah. the hermetic order of the golden dawn was based on hermetic kabbalah, according to what i have heard.

This is a well written article. Someone had put this request at the end, detracting from the content like graffiti. BF 06:22 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

REQUEST - Christian works of Kabbalah should be discussed here. Non-Jewish and non-Christian works of Kabbalah, such as neo-paganism, should also be discussed here as well.


Two important things missing:

the Tree of Life. You dont have Kabbalah lege artis withouth Tree of Life
  • I am currently working on a Tree of Life graphic to be released under the FDL. --Masterhomer 04:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
the 4 emanation worlds (Atzilut, B'riah, Yetzirah,Assiah). Without it-no cosmology. So, these 3 things had to be juxtaposed in order to get a more comprehensive picture: 4 worlds (plus Adam Kadmon as the 5th) for cosmology, 5 souls for psychopneumatology, and Tree of Life as mythic symbol derived from Pythagorean tetractys to give esoteric link between Man and Cosmos.

Mir Harven 00:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Irrelevant digression

Other terms which originally described religious associations but have come to refer in some way to dangerous or suspicious behavior include zealot, assassin, and thug.

Why is this in this article? It seems to be an almost entirely irrelevant digression -- I fail to see why this information should be of especial interest to someone who wishes to learn about kabbalah. --Charles A. L. 19:02, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Dated descriptions of Kabbalah need to be rewritten

More important (apart from the abovementioned balderdash) is a dated & tribalist description of Kabbalist psychology. True, pockets of Jewish fundie Kabbalists still hold to a rather idiotic "racial-religious" pneumatology- but they're a negligent minority now. This part needs editing. Uhhh......I dont want to get entangled into this. Would some merciful nefesh spare me the arduous task of typing about Atzilut, Beriah, Kadmon, tzimtzum, gilgul,... ? Mir Harven 00:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion

"Neon Genesis Evangelion utilised the Kabbalah imagery heavily and implied a secret portion of the Kabbalah contained within the Dead Sea scrolls and maintained through time by various individuals and operating in a group currently known as SEELE (the leader of whom is believed to be either Cain or the Wandering Jew)."

What is this supposed to mean exactly?

As with many secular forms of Kabbalah, is has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. JFW | T@lk 11:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me?? "state of the art Kabballah"? This inherent nonsense.

there seems to be a misunderstanding here, maybe it's mine? neon genesis evangelion is not a form of kabbalah but an anime, (from what i hear a rather high-quality anime) that happens to borrow ideas from kabbalah and displays the etz chayim in the background of many scenes. i wouldn't worry about its inclusion in the article... the inclusion of kabbalah in fiction is relevent imo. but clarification would be good.

Panentheism and pantheism

Regarding these, neither is "nature worship". Panentheism describes religions which consider the universe to be part of God and lesser. Pantheism describes religions which consider God to be a fundamental, immanent part of all things. They are not distinct religions.

See Kabbalah#Mystic Doctrines in Talmudic Times, and Pantheism#Kabbalah. IZAK, you ought to look things up before entertaining kneejerk reactions. --Eequor 23:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most religious Jews do not hold by Kabbalah?

"Most religious Jews do not hold by Kabbalah, seeing mysticism as inferior to philosophical rationalism."? On what is this claim based? Jayjg 18:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To clarify: The vast majority of Orthodox Jews in Europe, outside the Hasidim, rejected Kabbalah as authoritative. That was one of the battles between them. Today, Kabbalah is considered authoritative among all Hasidic Jews (so far as I know), but in the rest of Orthodox Judaism it is merely an optional (and not mandatory) belief. At least, this is what I have seen and gathered, but I could be wrong. I do know that most Modern Orthodox Jews don't consider it mandatory. The vast majority of Reform and Conservative Jews (who view themselves as religious) reject Kabbalah altogether. (I deliberately used the word "religious" instead of "observant".) RK
Well, from what I have seen and read, Kabbalah is an integral part of both Chassidic and Sephardic belief and practice. Moreoever, even the Mitnagdim were Kabbalists (including the G"ra). And while the main Kabbalistic texts are typically not studied in Yeshivas, Luzzatto's Derech Hashem is extremely popular. I think the question of whether or not it is mandatory vs. optional is quite different from whether or not Orthodox Jews "hold by" it. While I don't agree with all of your explanation here in talk, it is, in my opinion, far more informative and accurate than the bare statement in the article itself. Perhaps you could incorporate part of it into the main text. Jayjg 02:01, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
O.K., I've made the text more accurate. Jayjg 16:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Popular Kabbalah - Kabbalah Institute - Hollywood

Should mention be made of the popularizing of Kabbalah by the Kabbalah Institute? It's appeal to celebrities, and criticism/condemnation by Orthodox Jewish movements and "cult-busting" organizations? Jayjg 16:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done. See Kabbalah Centre. RK

"Nonsense" quote of Lieberman

The Lieberman story is told differently at this source http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html , as follows:

A precisely opposite view on the value of kabbalah was taken by the late Professor Saul Lieberman, the great Talmud scholar of the Jewish Theological Seminary. In an introduction to a lecture Scholem delivered at the seminary, Lieberman said that several years earlier, some students asked to have a course here in which they could study kabbalistic texts. He had told them that it was not possible, but if they wished they could have a course on the history of kabbalah. For at a university, Lieberman said, "it is forbidden to have a course in nonsense. But the history of nonsense, that is scholarship."

Second version of the story at http://notesjds.cesjds.org/libraries/upper/BookRevi.nsf/0/57b2dde471505a9685256e52000a4f4d?OpenDocument, as follows

Saul Lieberman noted before a lecture that Scholem gave at the JTS on Ma'aseh Merkavah and Jewish gnosticism, "All of Kabbalah is complete nonsense, but the academic study of nonsense is scholarship."

Third version at http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2003/1909.htm

I begin with the observation of Saul Lieberman, the great Talmudist scholar who, in introducing the Gershom Scholem's lectures on the Kabbalah, noted: "Nonsense (when it is all said and done) is still nonsense. But the study of nonsense, that is a science" (Quoted in Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory.

Fourth version at http://www.lionstale.org/21n4/feature/f-kabbalah.html

My grandmother's uncle's brother-in-law Dr. Saul Lieberman once introduced Scholem before giving a lecture at the JTS with the comical remark, "All of Jewish Mysticism is complete nonsense (shtiut). But the academic study of 'non-sense' is scholarship."

Fifth version at http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

One prominent Orthodox Jew, when introducing a speaker on the subject of Jewish mysticism, said basically, "it's nonsense, but it's Jewish nonsense, and the study of anything Jewish, even nonsense, is worthwhile."

Sisth version at http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.158

The late Saul Lieberman is reported to have introduced him as follows: "Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, mysticism is nonsense but, as Professor Gershon Sholem will soon demonstrate, the study of nonsense is scholarship".

Seventh version at http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/zipperstein_03/zipperstein.pdf

'Superstition' the distinguished Talmudist Saul Lieberman apparently declared (there are, it seems, several variants of this quotation), 'is nonsense, but the study of superstition is scholarship.'

Which version is right? Which should be used?

Lieberman discussed this point in his classes and lectures many times; one can assume that he probably phrased it slightly differently each time. I rather suspect that all of the above statements are correct, plus or minus a word or two. RK 13:03, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
It is clear it was originally stated at a specific lecture introducing Scholem. I think it's more likely that the story has grown hazy with re-telling, and no accurate version exists. Thus it is best not to quote directly, which is why I made the changes I did. Jayjg 00:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sure. Still, I just wish to stress that there is no doubt that Lieberman discussed Kabbalah in this fashion. You wrote in a comment line that "the original version is more informative", but I disagree with that wording. It makes it sound like an urban myth; yet we know that he said this in public, he was recorded as saying such, and he never disagreed with this statement of his views. So we should avpid a direct quote unless we agree on a reliable source, but phrase it in such a way as to make clear he really did make this statement. RK 01:03, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Since there is no direct quote, or rather, since there are at least seven quotes, each saying different things (along the same line), and since we do not know the time or date at which he said it, nor is it any of his writings, the quote actually does have some "mythic" qualities. For that reason the current wording is the most one can reasonably claim. Jayjg 03:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kabbalah researches the question of the meaning of life; everything starts from this question. Often a person simply does not realize it, but asks this question unconsciously. This could be a question of where to go, what to read, what to do or whom to marry. These are little meanings, but at the end of the day, all our activity is determined by the higher meaning, which correlates to the understanding of the relationship between a subject, as a spiritual substance, and existence. A person may not even find an answer to this question, but all his activity may constitute a certain form of the expression of this question.

 This is a materialistic approach to searching for one's practical application within the framework of the real world. Later, when the level of self-realization increases in a subject, questions of an idealistic nature start to arise. Here a person enters a period of self-realization, of considering oneself as a part of an intelligent spiritual substance.

A person realizes that there is Upper Providence: "God exists, the Creator exits". The only problem is the question of what qualities are inherent in God or the Creator. Kabbalah claims that the Creator is the highest Law of Creation, the most synthesizing, containing all the rest of its particular laws, all of us, and all creations at all its levels and in all the worlds. This universal Law of Creation is called the Creator.

We can say that there is a period in man's activity in this world when he explores out of pure utilitarian interests. Later, when he starts to explore this world from the point of view of science itself, a pure science, then he already works towards the realization of the meaning of existence. This is a period of creation and altruism in the name of the Law of Creation.



“The Main Question – Search for the Meaning”

Author: Michael Laitman, PhD www.kabbalah.info

Kabbalah and Sufism

Can someone explain the differences and similarities with Sufism and Kabbalah? (Regardless of which religion they originated from.) Thanks

  • kabbalah (or at least the jewish version) and sufism are both forms of mysticism, so that in itself is a similarity. i don't know as much about hermetic kabbalah, though i do know it's associated with hermetism and hermeticism, while jewish kabbalah is, of course, associated with judaism. Gringo300 21:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the present article on Sufism in wikipedia , you will find so many similiarities.But since I have studied most of the original sufi texts , I can say that that article is quite biased and represents the beliefs of a particular sect to be Sufism . Sufism as I have found from the works of Rumi , Attar , Abusaid etc. is not based on a particular "reality map" as Kabbalah is . And the Sufi practice does not include meditation on a dogma .It is more about seeking union with the beloved ( the term the Sufi use to refer to God ,in a way synonymous with Truth) through passionate love and watchfulness of their hearts etc.It is highly emotional in nature and is concerned with direct experiences rather than an esoteric philosophy.But there is a very important similiarity between the essential doctrines of both systems , and that is the idea that all things have their roots in one substance , which the Sufi refer to as "unity of existance".this fits well the Kabbalistic doctrine concerning the first sephirah , Kether and that all other sephiroth have their origin in it and that even all sephiroth as concentrated in Malkuth are mystically one with Kether itself.Specialy some more philosophical Sufi texts show a similiarity with modern occult discussions on the nature of supernals (the first 3 emanations).

Major gap

It seems that the whole Christian reception of the Kabbalah beginning in the Rennaisance is missing--I would have thought it would be in the section "Hermetic Kabbalah," but that section skates straight to Crowley (who gets far, far more ink than he deserves, in my opinion) and misses the whole story from the early 16C (not 18C, as the article says): Pico, Reuchlin, Agrippa etc. P. Riis 02:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you knowledgable in this area? Jayjg 02:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really--I came to this article looking for info on this aspect of the topic. PRIIS 03:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kabbalah Page Quite Weak

I agree, wholeheartly, with that first who wrote that this should be rewritten by someone Jewish, or at least someone knowledgable about Kabbalah. For such a popular concept in modern day society, this entry is beyond reprehensible. It is chock full of errors and misleading comments. Additionally, the lack of information is shocking, as there is so so much more to write. Usually wikipedia is a great source of information, but for those looking for information on Kabbalah it would be better to not read this kabbalah entry at all. I tried to add a few things but unfortunatly I do not have much time for it. Also although I do know a lot about it, to find sources for everything, so that it is honest, would be way to time consuming. However, the entry should be re-written and as of now is basically worthless.

Samael Aun Weor

These paragraphs were recently anonymously inserted:

Interestingly, there is a robust and vibrant tradition of Gnosticism which is growing rapidly throughout the world, and which has its entire foundation in Kabbalistic science. Presenting a detailed and practical Initiatic Kabbalah, the modern founder of this movement, Samael Aun Weor, stresses the personal and experiential nature of mysticism, and explains how the structure of the Kabbalah represents not only the map of the universe and the human soul, but how the two become reconciled and acheive true religare (union; the root of "religion").

One of his most interesting and explosive works explains in detail one of the most controversial and elusive early Gnostic works: The Pistis Sophia. Long supressed by the established authorities and nowadays rejected by mainstream religious movements, The Pistis Sophia is a deeply Kabbalistic expression of the most sacred mysteries taught by Jesus of Nazareth. The commentary written by Samael Aun Weor reveals the meaning of the occult and symbolic language in The Pistis Sophia, and demonstrates the long tradition of Kabbalistic wisdom which has unfortunately been corrupted by those who still speak of it, and rejected by all the rest. The Pistis Sophia Unveiled is due to be released in its first English translation in 2004 by Thelema Press.

Aside from being highly POV, they make many claims that are completely unattteted. Can the author (or anyone else) provide evidence of various claims, such as "growing rapidly throughout the world", "has its entire foundation in Kabbalistic science", etc. ?

Copyedit needed

I have added substantial text to the The_names_of_God_in_Judaism and needs some help in checking the text for accuracy. In particular my understanding of The_names_of_God_in_Judaism#Kabbalistic_use. Any help will be appreciated. --Zappaz 17:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quote by Saul Lieberman

JayJG, as far as I know it is not merely reputed that Rabbi Saul Lieberman said this. AFAIK, the only question is about the precise wording. I have never heard of a JTS professor or student at the time questioning the authenticity of this teaching. BTW, the same thing is true of nearly everything ever taught by Rabbi Joseph Solobeitchik; the vast majority of his "teachings" are not quotes, but made from class notes from students and colleagues. RK 20:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

(1) In an introduction to a lecture Scholem delivered at the seminary, Lieberman said that several years earlier, some students asked to have a course here in which they could study kabbalistic texts. He had told them that it was not possible, but if they wished they could have a course on the history of kabbalah. For at a university, Lieberman said, "it is forbidden to have a course in nonsense. But the history of nonsense, that is scholarship."
Joseph Telushkin Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History, William Morrow and Co., 1991


(2) Lieberman, in introducing Scholem’s lectures on the Kabbalah, noted: "Nonsense (when it is all said and done) is still nonsense. But the study of nonsense, that is a science" (Quoted in Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory)
(3) The dominant figure in the seminary was Professor Saul Lieberman, one of the greatest Talmud scholars of the twentieth century. He was an academic scholar and thoroughgoing rationalist, who said of the study of Kabbalah, for example: "Kabbalah itself is nonsense; but scholarship in Kabbalah is science." Lieberman had a tendency to belittle Heschel's neo-Hasidism....
The Universal Rabbi, Friday, June 27, 2003, By Yair Sheleg
If you'll note above, months ago I brought seven other versions of this quote. I agree it seems highly likely he said something like this; however, given that no two versions of the quote agree with each other, and not one source I have found actually states an actual date on which he made the statement, it is still possible that the statement has been misattributed, or is even entirely apocryphal. NPOV demands that we qualify the claim in some reasonable way. I used "reputed", which is a positive term, rather than something negative like "alleged". Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I understand totally. I am not changing your edit. RK 18:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

POV

Modern historian Gershom Scholem (the most famous scholar and historian of Kabbalah in the twentieth century)...

This implies that Scholem is both the most famous scholar and the most famous historian of... century. He isn't universally considered the most famous scholar of Kabbalah in the twentieth century. Who says so, JTS? HKT 21:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Organization

Well, There is quite a bit you could elaborate on (such as hermetic kabbalah, christian kabbalah, etc) but I think the big problem with this page is how its organized. Concepts that originate by Isaac Luria is throw in general areas concerning kabbalah. Modern Hermetic things are thrown in other different categorizes then hermetic. I think It should probably be devided by Hasidic, Christian, Hermetic, Lurianic, and Judaic. With it being elaborated on each concept within those. Then when you run into mutual complying concepts. (like a hermetic adopting a hasidic idea saying "similar to the hasidim, the hermetic kabbalahists"). Because its current structure is almost unreadible. Jaynus _Izanagi 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey Jaynus: I have some questions for you:
  1. Your own "organizations" here are incorrect because "Judaic" INCLUDES "Hasidic" and "Lurianic" as Luria and the Hasidic masters were not claiming to teach anything "new", they were revealing the hidden depths of the Torah as part of Judaism and not as something "new" or "separate", so how can you complain about the organization of this article when your own organization, as you give it here, is lacking?
  2. Next question, can you mention one mainstream Christian church that endorses or teaches "Christian" "kabbalah" ???!!! and that actually calls it "kabbalah"??? (See Reincarnation#New Testament passages seen to be in opposition) So what the heck is "Christian" kabbalah really?
  3. On your own Wikipedia use page at User:Jaynus#Interests you voice a very serious POV that: "My Kabbalahistic practices are largely influenced by the Sefer Yetzirah, and the Bahir Although, I do reject the Zohar." (emphasis mine). Now can you please explain how you can reject a most basic text such as the Zohar (even the most important one) of the Kabbalah and yet add material to articles that must rely on the teachings of "Hasidic" and "Lurianic" Kabbalah that are based directly on the Zohar itself? In fact Luria was the one who popularized the Zohar the most in modern history, so it makes no sense to say that you are "influenced kabbalahisticly by Isaac Luria..." (see your user page again) when at the same time you attack the one text (i.e. the Zohar) that is most associated with Luria and which he helped popularize among the Jewish people of his times and onwards?
  4. Does "hermetic" kabbalah really have a true connection with mainstream classical Kabbalah? Kabbalah is intrinsically connected to Judaism, how can one honestly separate it from its true source and still study it? Is that not like enjoying honey without knowing that bees even exist? (Just an analogy that comes to mind)? I therefore suggest that Hermetic kabbalah get its own page and article (maybe just a redirect to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn would be sufficient) because it's at best a "stepchild" of the real thing and at worst a misbegoten "bastardization" of a more truthful subject about which it knows very little (for example, how much Hebrew language or Aramaic do students of the "hermetic" stuff really know?)

i started a hermetic kabbalah page once. it was quickly deleted. (sigh) Gringo300 20:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are just some basic questions for you, that you need to address clearly before your edits in this area of scholraship can be accepted with equanimity. IZAK 08:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

is there a distinction between judaic kabbalah and kabbalistic judaism? (judaic kabbalah as opposed to hermetic kabbalah, for example.) Gringo300 20:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

REQUEST - Can someone add a brief entry about English (and other alphabet) "Kabbala" systems? It could then link to the articles on things like The Five Percent Nation Supreme Alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Alphabet) and various 'Kamitic' types of ToL/alphabet-based systems who probably wouldn't call themselves syncretic.

Why was this link removed?

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I didn't remove it, but it does give the appearance of link spam to original essays. *shrug* Wikibofh 14:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Occultist

Why, in this article, are Crowley and Fortune "occultists" but Luria isn't?

They studied similar material. All, to various degrees, felt obligated to share certain information and keep secret (occult) certain other information.

Even the page on occult says the term is often used prejudicially.

Adistius 01:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we split this page up?

Frankly, I think this would benefit from a brief intro and then spliting into Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Hermetic, each of which has its own unique views and approaches. Trying to cram it all onto one page causes things to get too crowded and confused. Especially when you get down to the links.

Adistius 01:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Kabbalat Shabbat?

There is a reference in the article to Kabbalat Shabbat, which I think may be irrelevant to Kabbalah. The overlap is etymological; the root means "welcoming" or "receiving". The Kabbalat Shabbat service may have mystical connections, but I'm not sure they are Kabbalistic.

Indeed. While the proponents of adding Kabbalat Shabbat to the service were Kabbalists (Moses Cordovero), it has no direct relationship. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


Paths on the Tree of Life

There is an image of the tree of life in the article in which there are paths between Binah and Chesed and also Geburah and Chokmah , making 34 paths.It seems that such a diagram is in contrast with the common accepted view of Kabbalah and also ancient texts like Sepher Yetzirah. Any ideas?


Why was this link removed?

Revision as of 21:31, 19 June 2005

This is the largest (that I know of) collection of (edited) mainly Jewish-sourced Kabbalah links on the net. A similar external link seems to be tolerated in the Sefer Yetzirah article.

It's a completely indiscriminate pile of links. Not worth the ASCII. I will remove similar links from Sefer Yetzirah. JFW | T@lk 01:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that no links lists on this subject are tolerated by you? Can you explain your use of the word "indiscriminate?" Perhaps you are not familar enough with the subject to recognize the organization of the material? 66.30.113.121 (talk · contribs)

That page contains >1000 links, but without intelligible descriptions, without a system. Wikipedia is not a link directory, and that's policy. I'll ignore your personal attack for now, but please remain civil. JFW | T@lk 15:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack? I see. Then I should submit this completely indiscriminate worthless pile of ascii for your preview.