This page 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. |
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.
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:
Mir Harven 00:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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)
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 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?
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.
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, seeing mysticism as inferior to philosophical rationalism."? On what is this claim based? Jayjg 18:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)
The Lieberman story is told differently at this source http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html , as follows:
Second version of the story at http://notesjds.cesjds.org/libraries/upper/BookRevi.nsf/0/57b2dde471505a9685256e52000a4f4d?OpenDocument, as follows
Third version at http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2003/1909.htm
Fourth version at http://www.lionstale.org/21n4/feature/f-kabbalah.html
Fifth version at http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm
Sisth version at http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.158
Seventh version at http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/zipperstein_03/zipperstein.pdf
Which version is right? Which should be used?
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
Can someone explain the differences and similarities with Sufism and Kabbalah? (Regardless of which religion they originated from.) Thanks
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).
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)
Not really--I came to this article looking for info on this aspect of the topic. PRIIS 03:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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.
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. ?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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?
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.
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)
Personal attack? I see. Then I should submit this completely indiscriminate worthless pile of ascii for your preview.
This page 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. |
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.
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:
Mir Harven 00:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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)
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 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?
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.
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, seeing mysticism as inferior to philosophical rationalism."? On what is this claim based? Jayjg 18:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)
The Lieberman story is told differently at this source http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html , as follows:
Second version of the story at http://notesjds.cesjds.org/libraries/upper/BookRevi.nsf/0/57b2dde471505a9685256e52000a4f4d?OpenDocument, as follows
Third version at http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2003/1909.htm
Fourth version at http://www.lionstale.org/21n4/feature/f-kabbalah.html
Fifth version at http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm
Sisth version at http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.158
Seventh version at http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/zipperstein_03/zipperstein.pdf
Which version is right? Which should be used?
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
Can someone explain the differences and similarities with Sufism and Kabbalah? (Regardless of which religion they originated from.) Thanks
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).
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)
Not really--I came to this article looking for info on this aspect of the topic. PRIIS 03:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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.
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. ?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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?
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.
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)
Personal attack? I see. Then I should submit this completely indiscriminate worthless pile of ascii for your preview.