5862Re: Jewish mysticism
- May 10 2:42 AMSay, I like that article. It does look like Hermetic Star is aware of
the difference... just thought I would make it more obvious for the
club at large :) .... and weasle my way into the conversation at the
--- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> "Jewish mysticism then can be dated back pretty far, but not all
> Jewish mystical forms are specifically `Kabbalah'." (PMCV, #5860)
> Yes, of course, agreed, PMCV. I think perhaps Hermetic Star might
> aware of this from his comment ~
> "Even if the Kabbalah is a fairly new creation . ." (Hermetic Star,
> ~ and that, as you suggest, PMCV, it's more a matter of
> mistakenly referring to the ancient roots as well as the medieval
> form of Kabbalah under the same term "Kabbalah." Then again, I
> be entirely wrong here and should probably let Hermetic Star speak
> for himself. LOL
> Anyway, PMCV, you mention, "There are changes that happened that
> Kabbalah destinct from the Merkabah mysticism."
> Are you (or others) familiar with this article?
> From the text ~
> "By the time of the writing of the Zohar, however, God was
> related to the visible world through an intricate web of sefirotic
> symbolism. The world, and the human soul, were seen as deep
> structures. Kabbalah took on the philosophical project of
> the mitzvot, and the rest of creation, apparently without
> why the world is necessarily "deep" to begin with. Again, while it
> took many of its answers for how the inner structure of the world
> built and how it related to God from non-philosophical sources, it
> took its project from philosophy.
> Once again, it would be helpful if a Kabbalist had written
> that philosophy had helped him see that there were layers of
> beyond the surface, and that was the reason why Provencal and
> Geronese Kabbalists in the 12th and 13th century suddenly began
> explaining the deeper significance of Jewish ritual life. But such
> text does not exist. And, as before, I am persuaded by Scholem's
> Dan's arguments that Kabbalah does not invent itself because of the
> rationalist threat. But, before the twelfth century, and in areas
> where philwas not historically widespread, Jewish rabbinic and
> mystical thought was not at all interested on the "inner meanings"
> the commandments. After the twelfth century, Kabbalah was all about
> Indeed, as Kabbalah flowered, the distinction between "shell"
> and "kernel" became the foundation of the entire Kabbalistic
> ontology. Here again, the doctrines were likely of ancient origin:
> the phenomenological likeness between the Kabbalah's layer of
> to gnosticism is quite compelling. But Jewish mysticism had for one
> thousand years made use of gnostic imagery and symbolism without
> constructing an elaborate system of "inner meanings" of prayer,
> ritual acts, and the entirety of human life.
> [ ]
> I have suggested that philosophy and Kabbalah are more alike than
> different, in that they share the same questions and concerns, even
> though they differ greatly on the answers to those questions and
> way those concerns are played out. So successful has the "victory"
> been that it is hard even to imagine a religious worldview that is
> not particularly interested in how the world was created, and that
> doesn't try to uncover the deeper meaning of right human action.
> And yet, both the Talmudic-rabbinic and mystical veins within
> appear to be just that. A Yored Merkavah may meditate, utter divine
> names, and have a vision of the Chariot, but he is unlikely to
> connect that vision either with the nature of the universe or with
> the inwardness of his prayers.33 Likewise, the revealed nature of
> commandments was enough for the Rabbinic Jew, who placed value in
> their proper performance, not in their intellectual or symbolic
> structure. To reassert such structures could have been the response
> of Judaism to the philosophical challenge -- it would have been an
> interesting debate, but it would not have been Kabbalah."
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>