Talk:Tree of life (Kabbalah)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Michael Sharp reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dr. Simo Parpola??? 

message: 
</blockquote>
Thanks. sloth_monkey 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three pillars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should this be here? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ain Soph Aur. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Da'arth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stars and planetary cycles discovered in Torah 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article should be renamed

message: 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)
replies: text: Forked this whole section to Tree of Life. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove reference to Buddhism?