Talk:Tree of life (Kabbalah)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bibliography[edit]

Could someone please add a short non-controversial bibliography to this article? Thanks. - Eyeresist 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Michael Sharp reference[edit]

I removed this text from the entry "Michael Sharp perhaps provides a modernized account of the cosmology of Kabbalah in The Book of Light. Sharp even provides updated imagery for The Tree in the form of a Christmas tree like presentation of a collective, but individualized, unfolding of consciousness."

A. The Michael Sharp entry is marked for deletion. B. Who could give a flyin' f' about Michael Sharp? New age cultists pulling Kabbalistic interpretations out of their rears are not taken seriously by any legitimate scholars of Kabbalah. If you don't have a fluid working knowledge of Hebrew, Tanakh, Talmud, and Jewish civilizational history before you get to the Zohar, any attempt you make to understand it is a wasted one.

Mobius1ski 11:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, and what's more, it seems likely that those who are well-versed in Hebrew, Tanakh, Talmud, and the general origins and history of Jewish civilisation, while probably be able to penetrate the Kabbalah, would not set store by it. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:8897:D3E5:2D92:72C1 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnanounced move[edit]

Ok, so where did this come from? User:IZAK recently performed a major move of the contents of the Tree of life (Kabbalah) article to Sephirot (Kabbalah), citing that the article was not about the tree of life, so much as it was about the sephirot. I have VARIOUS problems with this move.

  1. This was a significant edit performed without warning or discussion, and that for this reason alone it should be rv and discussed before performing the move.
    • many people put a lot of effort into this article, and they deserve say in its position in the wikipedia
  2. I disagree that the article is more about sephirot than kabbalah
    • The tree of life in kabbalah is used largely as an explanatory device to relate the sephirot, so talking about the tree necessitates a good deal of discussion of sephirot.
    • the following category's are specifically about the tree of life
      • The Pillars (it discusses the organization of sephirot into pillars within the tree)
      • non-traditional interpretations
      • in the occult
      • numerology
      • pop-culture
    • Technically, these sections could simply be moved to the tree article, but they currently stand in something of a flow in the original article.
  3. The tree is represented in various traditions (see non-traditional interpretations).
    • If Tree of life (Kabbalah) Gets its own articles, then each interpretation deserves it's own full article as well; otherwise the wikipedia will be favoring the kabalistic interpretation over the others.
    • The other articles, will be standalone articles. Although they could techincally be linked to master-articles talking about the traditions they are founded upon, the tree is not a fundamental concept in all of these (if any).
    • It would not make sense for the kabbalistic article to treat the tree as a subtopic of sephirot when the others would be articles in themselvse. The encyclopedia will be better organized by giving an article to each. Therefore the original article needs to be restored.
  4. Finally, the position of this article is impractical.
    • As it stands, the tree of life article is barely a stub and gives very little information about the tree of life.
    • In contrast, the Sephirot article talks in depth about the tree, but under the assumption that the reader understands that the article is about the sephirot as described by the tree. A reader who takes the initiative to investigate the master article may feel overwhelmed by information that they don't realize is necessary to the concept they are trying to understand.
    • Finally, A passive reader may feel discouraged from investigating the master article, feeling closure at having found the uninformative stub (tree of life). We will not be doing this reader justice, even if it was their decision to not investigate the topic further.

So that will probably be alot to read, but please at least skim my points, I feel they are valid. Shaggorama 08:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments here--◀Pucktalk▶

The standard term is Sephirot or Sefirot[edit]

The following is being cross-posted at Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah).

As a rejoinder to the above:

On the other hand, the topic as presented by the name "Tree of Life/life" has basically no commonly accepted usage. Regardless of advanced esoteric teachings and interpretations, the fact remains, and as proven from the above Wikipedia links and redirects, that the words and the topic as framed by the words "Sephirot" or "Sephiroth" or "Sefiroth" or "Sephirah" or "Sefira" MUST be given preference over any others because it's the only one in use. No-one, but a few scholars perhaps, uses it in any other way. Thus, there should be a separate article about "Tree of life" in relation to the Sephirot/Sefirot. Thank you. IZAK 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Sepiroth. JaynusofSinope

Merge With Tree of Life[edit]

Can we merge the information on this page with the Tree of Life article? It seems to me like it's the same subject and item being described on two pages. The "Tree of life (Kabbalah)" could be written as a section on the Tree of Life article as "The Tree of Life in Kabbalah" TCorp 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, The article is merely small at the moment. The tree of life is highly complicated and controversial. 206.251.12.45
The article is still small, and it's been a year. This article should be rolled into Sephirot (Kabbalah) or Tree of Life. 216.254.4.195 23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the Tree of Life page that isn't from the Kabbalah deals with things like metaphors of non-religious matters (The Darwin part) or of specific trees whose names mean "tree of life" in their dialect, then they have nothing to do with the religious cult views of this page ::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.216.176 (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Simo Parpola???[edit]

I think this entry is a bit overly complicated for something thats just conjecture. The tree of life article's main focus should be the tree of life as it is known. Not essay's about theories of origins. If your going to add a theory about the origin of the tree of life (which there are many) I think it should be brief and give an objective view of all the various theories about its origins. Parpolas theory is hardly orthodox and downright blasphemious to the Orthdox jewish belief.

On the contrary, I do not think that Dr. Parpola's paper is 'just conjecture'. It may however be blasphemous in Jewish eyes. This by itself does not validate its removal from the entry. It is a valid piece of scholarship and I vote for its inclusion. I think that the reason it seems a bit long is only in relation to this size of the article, which is rather brief. The various articles on Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Qabbalah and Hermetic Qabbalah are really in need of a serious overhaul as bits and pieces of the various subjects are all over the place. I am going to attempt a reworking of these articles but I can't promise it real soon. Morgan Leigh 02:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simo Parpola[edit]

Simo Parpola was not a good place for this article. Although it may have been related to the tree of life. Many things can be related to the tree of life and there are thousands of authors with different hypothesis on origins and theories on the tree of life which would hardly be appropriate to put them ALL in the tree of life article especially since that would lead to a lot of authors using wikipedia to plug there own books. Thusly, it has been moved to Simo Parpola's own entry. Try to keep the article factual and less theoretical and hypothesis.

References[edit]

It would be nice if this article cited sources and contained a References section. Anyone who has worked on providing the information contained in this article, please try to add references to any sources you can.

In case you don't already know, the best way to cite sources is to use <ref> tags, as follows.

Statement.<ref>Source of statement</ref>

References[edit]

<references />

Thanks. sloth_monkey 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to help edit this article with clean up and citation additions soon. Kephera975 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of the citations that I would have are mainly from Hermetic Kabbalah authors, but I do have one or two more traditional sources. Maybe someone else will be able to add more from the more traditionally Jewish Kabbalistic authors? Kephera975 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three pillars[edit]

There is an incoming link to this page from Three pillars. Please verify, is that legitimate? There are no references to pillars on this page currently. Thanks. --Quiddity 16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be here?[edit]

I'm new at this, but should this be here?: "It can be noted that the explanation that Kabbalists give of the evolution or emanation of the universe is startingly similar to that given by modern scientists in various fields. Modern science generally accepts the idea that the universe began from a singularity, a dot in the centre of nothingness containing possibly infinite energy. It is thought that the energy next went through a stage of cooling as it expanded into space and time. Both the hot energy of the Big Bang and the coldness of space cooperated to create the material of the universe and resulted in the formation of the first atoms and galaxies."

I guess its rather similar (though enough differences emerge in my mind to dismiss it) but does wikipedia really do this kind of thing often? you wouldn't describe at length the similarities between say, Maori cosmology and alchemy in an article on either one, and I'm sure if I really wanted to I could find a lot of associations there...I went to this page to learn about the history and symbolism behind the tree, not read some pop-psychological essay about how we in the modern world ought to interpret it. Whenever the phrase "It can be noted" or "it is said" appears, warning bells really should go off. Theodidactus (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ain Soph Aur.[edit]

I've read in sources on hermetic kabbalah that there are three stages "beyond" Kether (the 1st Sephiropth, or #1 itself, the singularity & absolute unity of oneness) and are "before it" but also since creation are in fact just part of it now. They are Ain, Ain, Soph, & Ain Soph Aur. Sometimes given the numerals 000 (for Ain) 00 (for Ain Soph) and 0 (for Ain Soph Aur) with the final zero turning into 1 (kether), but all these forms of nothingness are unified into the godhead as kether since creation, and are not before it or above it at all anymore, since oneness and the absoluteness of the philosophical conceptualization of oneness is that there is nothing outside of it, it is the all-one, and every possibility to unified inside of it's singularity. I think I've read the "three forms of zero" are something such as: 000-lacking any possibility except it's own contradiction of being no-thing and being inable to be even that without defining itself as a static 'being'; giving rise to the next 00-infinite potentiality, previous condition realized as lacking even refutation and therefore being the infinitity of nonexistence and the template for any possible existence. 0-infinite empty space, static endless void, vacuum, limitless space, emptiness. The previous condition realized as no thing beyond only itself and unable to be impartial or particular to any other specific thing in it's eternity, the vacuum from which the first thought, or pure essence of all encompassing singularity (1-kether) came from. 4.242.192.40 (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da'arth[edit]

Why is da'arth represented as a vague sephirot, and not the usual vague band or barrier? Please correct this to match the tradition/the Kabbalah, or remove the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.39 (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The image of the Tree on this page is the model of "before the fall". The usual image of the tree is with Daath as a "missing" Sephiroth and paths linking Malkuth to Hod & Netzach. i.e. The "after the fall" model. Like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_kircher_hebrew.png Andypreston (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and planetary cycles discovered in Torah[edit]

There was a discovery of stars in Torah, some constellations were discovered that are the physical manifestations of the ten sephiroth: http://theoryoftorah.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-are-there-references-to-stars-and.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.222.102 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree more.

The relation between the Tree of Life and the cosmology of Judaism is fundamental to it's understanding and I am astounded that there is no reference to it on this page. Even relatively popular commentators such as Richard Cavendish make explicit reference to it ('''see "The Black Arts" Chapter 3 sub.1''').

At the time, observations of the visible universe placed the earth at the centre of a series of concentric spheres. The first sphere housed the earth, the second: the moon, the third: mercury and so on. Beyond the "moving" bodies of the visible planets was the sphere of the stars and beyond that the sphere of the "prime mover" or unknowable God. The earth and earthly things (corresponding to the Malkhut) are the lowest sephiroth (connected to the word "sphere" via the greek "sphaira"), followed by those corresponding to the heavenly bodies and ending finally with the Kether (crown) which is the sphere of God.

A second major problem I have with this page is information like: "The next stage is Chokmah, or Wisdom, which is considered to be a stage at which the infinitely hot and contracted singularity expanded forth into space and time. It is often thought of as pure dynamic energy of an infinite intensity forever propelled forth at a speed faster than light." When the Zohar was written they had no idea what a singularity was or, indeed, whether light had any speed at all. This is the worst kind of woolly analogy - one which, I am certain, is simply selling pseudo-science to devotees of the Kaballa Centre. It needs to be marked under a sub-heading of modern interpretation of the Kaballa or erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StaticRabbit (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be renamed[edit]

This article is not on the Kabbalah per se, but on its Christian occult and New Age cultist adaptations and offshoots. The entire bibliography, fittingly for this purpose, is only to works published by and circulating amongst such offshoots, too. They have no authority amongst Jewish Kabbalists. That is not just because many of them have very little foundation in the actual Hebrew and Aramaic sources, but take their information only at second or third hand, but more generally because these offshoots dissolve the original Jewish mystical system and significances into quite different religious systems which are in basic respects often incompatible with Judaism, so the original emphases and meanings must be changed or simply ignored, altering the significance of the entire mystical system.

The article should not be titled "Tree of Life (Kabbalah)," but "Tree of Life (Christian and New Age Kabbalah)." There should be a different and wholly new article simply on "Tree of Life (Kabbalah)" or, if one insists, "Tree of Life (Jewish Kabbalah)." However, since "Kabbalah" just by itself is already a Jewish/Hebrew term and came to denote the (Jewish) mystical tradition first and aboriginally in Judaism, which then was copied and transformed into other religions, the term "Kabbalah" by itself already means Jewish Kabbalah and none other, and so the first proposed version is sufficient and more accurate.Tempered (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove reference to Buddhism?[edit]

The tree of life is a symbol of the nature of life and the universe, while the Bodhi tree was... well, a tree. It has no significance beyond existing as a tree. I'm not sure where the parallel is. 144.136.192.38 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forked this whole section to Tree of Life. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah)&oldid=1215302486"