|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
SWORD OF WORDS
LOOK AT THE 5S LOOK AT THE 5S LOOK AT THE 5S THE 5S THE 5S
THE SWORD OF WORDS
SECRET CHAMBERS Robert Bauval 1 999 MAGICAL RELIGION Page 120 "A century or so after the rediscovery of the Corpus Hermeticum, a strange regeneration of , Egyptian' mysticism was taking place in Western culture. The Hermetica was being circulated among scholars, the educated classes and even royalty.19 A new breed of 'Hermetic' philo- sophers, cabalists, alchemists, magicians, seers and wizards of all sorts began to emerge.20 In Chapter 2 we saw the bizarre involvement of the Papacy with Hermeticism and how some misguided scholars attempted to convince the Church not only that Hermes- Thoth was a prophet of Christianity, but also that his 'books' should be canonised and embraced as 'gospels' of the Roman Catholic Church. Others, more radical in their demands, went as far as to preach the return of the 'Egyptian' religion as the true religion of the world. Among the most forceful and influential of these new Hermetic activists was a mysterious Italian scholar from the Nolan region called Giordano Bruno. ..The classical art of mnemonics is to learn how to create such an icon yourself and store it in the mind; then, at a later date, unleash it at will to bring back the desired memory stored in it. A very simple example of this is when you tie a string on your finger in order to remind you of something later. on. This works so long as the item you wish to remember is simple and straightforward. What if the subject matter involved remembering a complex chain of events such as a Shakespeare play or a lecture on atomic physics? A far more sophisticated method would be needed, and that is where the art of mnemonics can be applied. One of the techniques is to imagine a house that you are familiar with, and allocate in chronological order the memory of each event to a room or item in this house. Later you can visualise yourself walking around the house along a predetermined route, entering the rooms and, as you encounter each item or 'icon', the memory that it 'stores' begins to unfold. It takes many years of practice to become a master of the art of memory, and those few who have the ability and intellect to become adepts will develop tremendous insight, which in turn can be converted into enormous power of influence and manipulation. Vast memory that can be controlled, like that of a powerful computer, translates into vast reservoirs of knowledge. Knowledge, as we all know, is power. The greater the memory and the more refined the means to store and control it, the greater the power of the magician.
Daily Mail, Thursday, November 17, 2011 Page 70 QUESTION The W. B Yeats poem Mad As The Mists and snow name checks Homer, Horace, Cicero and and Tully ('and here is Tully's open page') Who was Tully?
David Bradbury, London.
THE ART OF MEMORY FRANCIS A. YATES 1966 THREE LATIN SOURCES FOR THE CLASSICAL ART OF MEMORY Page 21 "The Ad Herennium was a well known and much used text in the Middle Ages when it had an immense prestige because it was thought to be by Cicero. It was therefore believed that the precepts for the artificial memory which it expounded had been drawn up by Tullius himself" Page 32 Page 282 "By the THE LADDER OF MINERVA we rise from the first to the last..."
APOCATASTASIS = 144 AND 36 3+6 = 9
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis www.newadvent.org › Catholic Encyclopedia › ACached - SimilarNot helpful? You can block www.newadvent.org results when you're signed in to search.www.newadvent.org
Apocatastasis (Greek, apokatastasis; Latin, restitutio in pristinum statum, restoration to the original condition). A name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls. The doctrine, then, was first taught by Origen, and by Clement of Alexandria, and was an influence in their Christianity due to Platonism, as Petavius has plainly shown (Theol. dogmat. De Angelis, 106), following St. Augustine City of God XXI.13. Compare Janet, "La philosophiede Platon" (Paris, 1869), I, 603. It is evident, moreover, that the doctrine involves a purely natural scheme of divine justice and of redemption. (Plato, Republic, X, 614b.) It was through Origen that the Platonist doctrine of the apokatastasis passed to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and simultaneously to St. Jerome, at least during the time that St. Jerome was an Origenist. It is certain, however, that St. Jerome understands it only of the baptized: "In restitutione omnium, quando corpus totius ecclesiæ nunc dispersum atque laceratum, verus medicus Christus Jesus sanaturus advenerit, unusquisque secundum mensuram fidei et cognitionis Filii Dei . . . suum recipiet locum et incipiet id esse quod fuerat" (Comment. in Eph., iv, 16; P.G., XXVI, col. 503). Everywhere else St. Jerome teaches that the punishment of the devils and of the impious, that is of those who have not come to the Faith, shall be eternal. (See Petavius, Theol. dogmat. De Angelis, 111, 112.) The "Ambrosiaster" on the other hand seems to have extended the benefits of redemption to the devils, (In Eph., iii, 10; P.L., XVII, col. 382), yet the interpretation of the "Ambrosiaster" on this point is not devoid of difficulty. [See Petavius, p. 111; also, Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, depuis l'origine, etc. (Paris, 1904) 187.] From the moment, however, that anti-Origenism prevailed, the doctrine of the apokatastasis was definitely abandoned. St. Augustine protests more strongly than any other writer against an error so contrary to the doctrine of the necessity of grace. See, especially, his "De gestis Pelagii", I: "In Origene dignissime detestatur Ecclesia, quod et iam illi quos Dominus dicit æterno supplicio puniendos, et ipse diabolus et angeli eius, post tempus licet prolixum purgati liberabuntur a poenis, et sanctis cum Deo regnantibus societate beatitudinis adhærebunt." Augustine here alludes to the sentence pronounced against Pelagius by the Council of Diospolis, in 415 (P.L., XLIV, col. 325). He moreover recurs to the subject in many passages of his writings, and in City of God XXI sets himself earnestly to prove the eternity of punishment as against the Platonist and Origenist error concerning its intrinsically purgatorial character. We note, further, that the doctrine of the apokatastasis was held in the East, not only by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but also by St. Gregory of Nazianzus as well; "De seipso", 566 (P.G., XXXVII, col. 1010), but the latter, though he asks the question, finally decides neither for nor against it, but rather leaves the answer to God. Köstlin, in the "Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie" (Leipzig, 1896), I, 617, art. "Apokatastasis", names Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia as having also held the doctrine of apokatastasis, but cites no passage in support of his statement. In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church. It was destined, nevertheless, to be revived in the works of ecclesiastical writers, and it would be interesting to verify Köstlin's and Bardenhewer's statement that it is to be traced in Bar Sudaili, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, Scotus Erigena, and Amalric of Bena. It reappears at the Reformation in the writings of Denk (d. 1527), and Harnack has not hesitated to assert that nearly all the Reformers were apocatastasists at heart, and that it accounts for their aversion to the traditional teaching concerning the sacraments (Dogmengeschichte, III, 661). The doctrine of apokatastasis viewed as a belief in a universal salvation is found among the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, the Christadelphians, among rationalistic Protestants, and finally among the professed Universalists. It has been held, also, by such philosophic Protestants as Schleiermacher, and by a few theologians, Farrar, for instance, in England, Eckstein and Pfister in Germany, Matter in France. Consult Köstlin, art. cit., and Grétillut, "Exposé de théologie systématique" (Paris, 1890), IV, 603.
THE COSMIC MIND BOGGLING BOOK Neil McAleer 1982 "The crater Giordano Bruno is believed to be one of the youngest craters on the moon..."
BELOVED OF GOD OF GOD BELOVED
ZoharFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Contents
1 Authorship 1.1 Initial view 1.2 Late Middle Ages 1.3 Enlightenment period 1.4 Contemporary religious view 1.5 Modern criticism, view of authorship 1.6 Academic historical views 2 Contents 2.1 Appendices and additions 2.2 Viewpoint 2.3 Ditheistic mysticism 2.4 Biblical exegesis 3 Commentaries 4 Influence 4.1 Judaism 4.2 Neo-Platonism 4.3 Christian mysticism 5 English translations 6 See also 7 References 8 External links [edit] Authorship[edit] Initial view Representation of the Five Worlds with the 10 Sephirot in each, as successively smaller concentric circles, derived from the light of the Kav after the TzimtzumSuspicions aroused by the facts that the Zohar was discovered by one person, and that it refers to historical events of the post-Talmudic period while purporting to be from an earlier time, caused the authorship to be questioned from the outset.[3] Joseph Jacobs and Isaac Broyde, in their article on the Zohar for the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, cite a story involving the noted Kabbalist Isaac of Acco, who is supposed to have heard directly from the widow of de Leon that her husband authored the Zohar for profit: A story tells that after the death of Moses de Leon, a rich man of Avila named Joseph offered Moses' widow (who had been left without any means of supporting herself) a large sum of money for the original from which her husband had made the copy. She confessed that her husband himself was the author of the work. She had asked him several times, she said, why he had chosen to credit his own teachings to another, and he had always answered that doctrines put into the mouth of the miracle-working Shimon bar Yochai would be a rich source of profit. The story indicates that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some to have been written by Moses de Leon.[3]
However, Isaac evidently ignored the woman's alleged confession in favor of the testimony of Joseph ben Todros and of Jacob, a pupil of Moses de León, both of whom assured him on oath that the work was not written by de Leon. Over time, the general view in the Jewish community came to be one of acceptance of Moses de Leon's claims, with the Zohar seen as an authentic book of mysticism passed down from the 2nd century. The Zohar spread among the Jews with remarkable swiftness. Scarcely fifty years had passed since its appearance in Spain before it was quoted by many Kabbalists, including the Italian mystical writer Menahem Recanati and by Todros Abulafia. Certain Jewish communities, however, such as the Baladi Yemenite, Andalusian (Western Sefardic or Spanish and Portuguese Jews), and some Italian communities, never accepted it as authentic.[3]
[edit] Late Middle AgesBy the 15th century, its authority in the Spanish Jewish community was such that Joseph ibn Shem-Tov drew from it arguments in his attacks against Maimonides, and even representatives of non-mystical Jewish thought began to assert its sacredness and invoke its authority in the decision of some ritual questions. In Jacobs' and Broyde's view, they were attracted by its glorification of man, its doctrine of immortality, and its ethical principles, which they saw as more in keeping with the spirit of Talmudic Judaism than are those taught by the philosophers, and which was held in contrast to the view of Maimonides and his followers, who regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect. The Zohar instead declared Man to be the lord of the creation, whose immortality is solely dependent upon his morality.[3]
Conversely, Elijah Delmedigo (c.1458 – c.1493), in his Bechinat ha-Dat endeavored to show that the Zohar could not be attributed to Shimon bar Yochai, arguing that if it were his work, the Zohar would have been mentioned by the Talmud, as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period, that had bar Yochai known by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions on Jewish law from the Talmudic period would have been adopted by the Talmud, that it would not contain the names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of Simeon; and that if the Kabbalah was a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts.[3][9]
Believers in the authenticity of the Zohar countered that the lack of references to the work in Jewish literature were because bar Yohai did not commit his teachings to writing but transmitted them orally to his disciples over generations until finally the doctrines were embodied in the Zohar. They found it unsurprising that bar Yochai should have foretold future happenings or made references to historical events of the post-Talmudic period.[3]
The authenticity of the Zohar was accepted by such 16th century Jewish luminaries as R' Yosef Karo (d.1575), R' Moses Isserles (d. 1572), and R' Solomon Luria (d.1574), who wrote that Jewish law (Halacha) follows the Zohar, except where the Zohar is contradicted by the Babylonian Talmud.[10]
[edit] Enlightenment periodDebate continued over the generations; Delmedigo's arguments were echoed by Leon of Modena (d.1648) in his Ari Nohem, and a work devoted to the criticism of the Zohar, Miṭpaḥat Sefarim, was written by Jacob Emden (d.1776), who, waging war against the remaining adherents of the Sabbatai Zevi movement (in which Zevi, a false messiah and Jewish apostate, cited Messianic prophecies from the Zohar as proof of his legitimacy), endeavored to show that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery. Emden argued that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud; contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities; mentions The Crusades against Muslims (who did not exist in the 2nd century); uses the expression "esnoga," a Portuguese term for "synagogue"; and gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were not introduced until long after the Talmudic period.[3]
The influence of the Zohar and the Kabbalah in Yemen, where it was introduced in the 17th century, gave rise to the Dor Daim movement, whose adherents believed that the core beliefs of Judaism were rapidly diminishing in favor of the mysticism of the Kabbalah. The Dor Daim movement, led by Rabbi Yiḥyah Qafiḥ, emerged as a recognizable force in the later part of the 19th century, and considered the Kabbalists to be irrational, anti-scientific, and anti-progressive in attitude. Its objects were to combat the influence of the Zohar and subsequent developments in modern Kabbalah, which were then pervasive in Yemenite Jewish life, to restore what they believed to be a rationalistic approach to Judaism rooted in authentic sources, and to safeguard the older ("Baladi") tradition of Yemenite Jewish observance that they believed to be based on this approach. Especially controversial were the views of the Dor Daim on the Zohar, as presented in Milhamoth Hashem (Wars of the Lord),[11] written by Rabbi Qafiḥ A group of Jerusalem rabbis published an attack on Rabbi Qafiḥ under the title of Emunat Hashem (Faith of the Lord), and measures were taken to ostracize members of the movement.
In the Ashkenazi community of Eastern Europe, later religious authorities including the Vilna Gaon (d.1797) and Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (d.1812) (The Baal HaTanya) believed in the authenticity of the Zohar.
[edit] Contemporary religious view
Title page of the Zohar, Mantua, 1558. Library of Congress.Most of Orthodox Judaism holds that the teachings of Kabbalah were transmitted from teacher to teacher, in a long and continuous chain, from the Biblical era until its redaction by Shimon ben Yochai. Many (most?) accept fully the claims that the Kabbalah's teachings are in essence a revelation from God to the Biblical patriarch Abraham, Moses and other ancient figures, but were never printed and made publicly available until the time of the Zohar's medieval publication.[citation needed] The greatest acceptance of this sequence of events is held within Haredi Judaism. Some claim the tradition that Rabbi Shimon wrote that the concealment of the Zohar would last for exactly 1200 years from the time of destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE and so before revealing the Zohar in 1270, Moses De Leon uncovered the manuscripts in a cave in Israel. R' Yechiel Michel Epstein (d.1908), and R' Yisrael Meir Kagan (d.1933) both believed in the authenticity of the Zohar. Belief in the authenticity of the Zohar among Orthodox Jewish movements can be seen in various forms online today. Featured on Chabad.org is the multi-part article, The Zohar's Mysterious Origins[12] by Moshe Miller, which views the Zohar as the product of multiple generations of scholarship but defends the overall authenticity of the text and refutes many of the textual criticisms from Scholem and Tishby. The Zohar figures prominently in the mysticism of Chabad. Another leading Orthodox online outlet, Aish.com, also shows broad acceptance of the Zohar by referencing it in many of its articles.[original research?]
Some[who?] in Modern Orthodox Judaism reject the above view as naive. Some Orthodox Jews accept the earlier rabbinic position that the Zohar was a work written in the middle medieval period by Moses de Leon, but argue that since it is obviously based on earlier materials, it can still be held to be authentic, but not as authoritative or without error as others within Orthodoxy might hold.[citation needed]
Jews in non-Orthodox Jewish denominations accept the conclusions of historical academic studies on the Zohar and other kabbalistic texts. As such, most non-Orthodox Jews have long viewed the Zohar as pseudepigraphy and apocrypha. Nonetheless, many accepted that some of its contents had meaning for modern Judaism. Siddurim edited by non-Orthodox Jews often have excerpts from the Zohar and other kabbalistic works, e.g. Siddur Sim Shalom edited by Jules Harlow, even though the editors are not kabbalists.
In recent years there has been a growing willingness of non-Orthodox Jews to study the Zohar, and a growing minority have a position that is similar to the Modern Orthodox position described above. This seems pronounced among Jews who follow the path of Jewish Renewal.
The Zohar is rejected by almost all Spanish and Portuguese Jews.[citation needed] Some among them believe the Zohar is collection of ideas based on Midrasim and misinterpretation of midrashic concepts.
[edit] Modern criticism, view of authorshipIn the mid-20th century, the Jewish historian Gershom Scholem contended that de Leon himself was the most likely author of the Zohar. Among other things, Scholem noticed the Zohar's frequent errors in Aramaic grammar, its suspicious traces of Spanish words and sentence patterns, and its lack of knowledge of the land of Israel. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, noted professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, claimed that "It is clear that the Zohar was written by de Leon as it is clear that Theodore Herzl wrote Medinat HaYehudim (The Jewish State)."
Other Jewish scholars have also suggested the possibility that the Zohar was written by a group of people, including de Leon. This theory generally presents de Leon as having been the leader of a mystical school, whose collective effort resulted in the Zohar.
Another theory as to the authorship of the Zohar is that it was transmitted like the Talmud before it was transcribed: as an oral tradition reapplied to changing conditions and eventually recorded. This view simultaneously believes that the Zohar was not written by Shimon bar Yochai, but was a holy work because it consisted of his principles.
Even if de Leon wrote the text, the entire contents of the book may not be fraudulent. Parts of it may be based on older works, and it was a common practice to ascribe the authorship of a document to an ancient rabbi in order to give the document more weight. It is possible that Moses de Leon considered himself inspired to write this text.[13]
Within Orthodox Judaism the traditional view that Shimon bar Yochai was the author is maintained. R' Menachem Mendel Kasher in an article in the periodical Sinai refutes many of Scholem's points. He writes:
1.Many statements in the works of the Rishonim (medieval commentors who preceded De Leon) refer to Medrashim that we are not aware of. He writes that these are in fact references to the Zohar. This has also been pointed out by R' David Luria in his work "Kadmus Sefer Ha'Zohar".
2.The Zohar's major opponent Elijah Delmedigo refers to the Zohar as having existed for "only" 300 years. Even he agrees that it was extant before the time of R' Moses De Leon. 3.He cites a document from R' Yitchok M' Acco who was sent by the Ramban to investigate the Zohar. The document brings witnesses that attest to the existence of the manuscript. 4.It is impossible to accept that R' Moshe De Leon managed to forge a work of the scope of the Zohar (1700 pages) within a period of six years as Scholem claims. 5.A comparison between the Zohar and De Leon's other works show major stylistic differences. Although he made use of his manuscript of the Zohar, many ideas presented in his works contradict or ignore ideas mentioned in the Zohar. (Luria also points this out) 6.Many of the Midrashic works achieved their final redaction in the Geonic period. Some of the anachronistic terminology of the Zohar may date from that time. 7.Out of the thousands of words used in the Zohar, Scholem finds two anachronistic terms and nine cases of ungrammatical usage of words. This proves that the majority of the Zohar was written within the accepted time frame and only a small amount was added later (in the Geonic period as mentioned). 8.Some hard to understand terms may be attributed to acronyms or codes. He finds corollaries to such a practice in other ancient manuscripts. 9.The "borrowings" from medieval commentaries may be explained in a simple manner. It is not unheard of that a note written on the side of a text should on later copying be added into the main part of the text. The Talmud itself has Geonic additions from such a cause. Certainly this would apply to the Zohar to which there did not exist other manuscripts to compare it with. 10.He cites an ancient manuscript that refers to a book Sod Gadol that seems to in fact be the Zohar. Concerning the Zohar's lack of knowledge of the land of Israel, Scholem bases this on the many references to a city Kaputkia (Cappadocia) which he states was situated in Turkey not in Israel. A city by this name located in Israel does appear, however, in Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonatan, Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud and several Midrashim. [edit] Academic historical viewsIn the Encyclopaedia Judaica article written by the late Professor Gershom Scholem of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem there is an extensive discussion of the sources cited in the Zohar. Scholem views the author of the Zohar as having based the Zohar on a wide variety of pre-existing Jewish sources, while at the same time inventing a number of fictitious works that the Zohar supposedly quotes, e.g., the Sifra de-Adam, the Sifra de-Hanokh, the Sifra di-Shelomo Malka, the Sifra de-Rav Hamnuna Sava, the Sifra de-Rav Yeiva Sava, the Sifra de-Aggadeta, the Raza de-Razin and many others.
Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of the Kabbalah, but like all textual historical investigations, are not uncriticially accepted; most of the following conclusions are still accepted as accurate, although academic analysis of the original texts has progressed dramatically since Scholem's ground-breaking research. Scholars that continue to research the background of the Zohar include Yehudah Liebes (who wrote his doctor's degree for Scholem on the subject of a Dictionary of the Vocabulary of the Zohar in 1976), and Daniel Matt, also a student of Scholem, who is currently reconstructing a critical edition of the Zohar based on original unpublished manuscripts.
While many original ideas in the Zohar are presented as being from (fictitious) Jewish mystical works, many ancient and clearly rabbinic mystical teachings are presented without their real, identifiable sources being named. Academic studies of the Zohar show that many of its ideas are based in the Talmud, various works of midrash, and earlier Jewish mystical works. Scholem writes:
The writer had expert knowledge of the early material and he often used it as a foundation for his expositions, putting into it variations of his own. His main sources were the Babylonian Talmud, the complete Midrash Rabbah, the Midrash Tanhuma, and the two Pesiktot (Pesikta De-Rav Kahana or Pesikta Rabbati), the Midrash on Psalms, the Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, and the Targum Onkelos. Generally speaking they are not quoted exactly, but translated into the peculiar style of the Zohar and summarized....
... Less use is made of the halakhic Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud, and the other Targums, nor of the Midrashim like the Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim, the Midrash on Proverbs, and the Alfabet de-R. Akiva. It is not clear whether the author used the Yalkut Shimoni, or whether he knew the sources of its aggadah separately. Of the smaller Midrashim he used the Heikhalot Rabbati, the Alfabet de-Ben Sira, the Sefer Zerubabel, the Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit, [and many others]... The author of the Zohar drew upon the Bible commentaries written by medieval rabbis, including Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi and even authorities as late as Nahmanides and Maimonides. Scholem gives a variety of examples of such borrowings. The Zohar draws upon early mystical texts such as the Sefer Yetzirah and the Bahir, and the early medieval writings of the Hasidei Ashkenaz.
Another influence on the Zohar which Scholem identified, was a circle of Kabbalasts in Castile who dealt with the appearance of an evil side emanating from within the world of the sephirot. Scholem saw this dualism of good and evil within the Godhead as a kind of "gnostic" inclination within Kabbalah, and as a predecessor of the Sitra Ahra (the other, evil side) in the Zohar. The main text of the Castile circle, the Treatise on the Left Emanation, was written by Jacob ha-Cohen in around 1265.[14]
[edit] ContentsThe Book of Zohar includes parts and chapters in conformance with the weekly chapters of the Torah:[15]
The Book of Beresheet (Genesis): Beresheet, Noach, Lech Lecha, Vayera, Chaiey Sarah, Toldot, Vayetze, Vayishlach, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Vayichi.
The Book of Shemot (Exodus): Shemot, Vayera, Bo, Bashalach, Yitro, Mishpatim, Terumah (Safra de Tzniuta), Tetzaveh, Ki Tissa, Veyikahel, Pekudey. The Book of Vayikra (Leviticus): Vayikra, Tzav, Shmini, Tazria, Metzura, Acharey, Kedushim, Emor, Ba Har, Bechukotay. The Book of Bamidbar (Numbers): Bamidbar, Naso (Idra Raba), Baalotcha, Shlach Lecha, Korach, Chukat, Balak, Pinchas, Matot. The Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy): Devarim, Ve Etchanen, Ekev, Reah, Shoftim, Ki Titze, Ki Tavo, Nitzavim, Vayelech, Ha’azinu (Idra Zuta), V'Zos HaBercha. [edit] Appendices and additionsThe Zohar is not considered complete without the addition of certain appendixes, which are often attributed either to the same author, or to some of his immediate disciples. These supplementary portions are almost always printed as part of the text with separate titles, or in separate columns. They are as follows:[3] Sifra di-Tsni`uta, consisting of five chapters, in which are chiefly discussed the questions involved in the Creation, such as the transition from the infinite to the finite, that from absolute unity to multifariousness, that from pure intelligence to matter, etc.;[3]
Idra Rabbah, in which the teachings of the preceding portion are enlarged upon and developed;[3] and Idra Zuta, giving a résumé of the two preceding sections.[3] To the larger appendixes are added the following fragments: Raza de Razin, ("Secret of Secrets") dealing with the connection of the soul with the body;[3] [edit] Ditheistic mysticismIn Eros and Kabbalah, Moshe Idel (Professor of Jewish Mysticism, Hebrew University in Jerusalem) argues that the fundamental distinction between the rational-philosophic strain of Judaism and mystical Judaism, as exemplified by the Zohar, is the mystical belief that the Godhead is complex, rather than simple, and that divinity is dynamic and incorporates gender, having both male and female dimensions. These polarities must be conjoined (have yihud, "union") to maintain the harmony of the cosmos. Idel characterizes this metaphysical point of view as "ditheism," holding that there are two aspects to God, and the process of union as "theoeroticism." This ditheism, the dynamics it entails, and its reverberations within creation is arguably the central interest of the Zohar, making up a huge proportion of its discourse (pp. 5–56).
Mention should also be made of the work of Elliot Wolfson (Professor of Jewish Mysticism, New York University), who has almost single-handedly challenged the conventional view, which is affirmed by Idel as well. Wolfson likewise recognizes the importance of heteroerotic symbolism in the kabbalistic understanding of the divine nature. The oneness of God is perceived in androgynous terms as the pairing of male and female, the former characterized as the capacity to overflow and the latter as the potential to receive. Where Wolfson breaks with Idel and other scholars of the kabbalah is in his insistence that the consequence of that heteroerotic union is the restoration of the female to the male. Just as, in the case of the original Adam, woman was constructed from man, and their carnal cleaving together was portrayed as becoming one flesh, so the ideal for kabbalists is the reconstitution of what Wolfson calls the male androgyne. Much closer in spirit to some ancient Gnostic dicta, Wolfson understands the eschatological ideal in traditional kabbalah to have been the female becoming male (see his Circle in the Square and Language, Eros, Being).
[edit] Biblical exegesisThe Zohar assumes four kinds of Biblical text exegesis:
1.The simple, literal meaning of the text: Peshat
2.The allusion or hinted/allegorical meaning: Remez 3.The rabbinic comparison through sermon or illustration and metaphor: Derash 4.The secret/mysterious/hidden meaning: Sod[3] The initial letters of these words (P, R, D, S) form together the word PaRDeS ("paradise/orchard"), which became the designation for the Zohar's view of a fourfold meaning of the text, of which the mystical sense is considered the highest part.[3] [edit] CommentariesThe first known commentary on the book of Zohar, "Ketem Paz", was written by rabbi Shimon Lavi of Libya.
Another important and influential commentary on Zohar, 22-volume "Or Yakar", was written by rabbi Moshe Cordovero of the Tzfat (i.e. Safed) kabbalistic school in the 16th century.
The Vilna Gaon authored a commentary on the Zohar.
Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch of Ziditchov wrote a commentary on the Zohar entitled Ateres Tzvi.
A major commentary on the Zohar is the Sulam written by Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag.
A full translation of the Zohar into Hebrew was made by the late Rabbi Daniel Frish of Jerusalem under the title Masok MiDvash.
[edit] Influence[edit] JudaismOn the one hand, the Zohar was lauded by many rabbis because it opposed religious formalism, stimulated one's imagination and emotions, and for many people helped reinvigorate the experience of prayer.[3] In many places prayer had become a mere external religious exercise, while prayer was supposed to be a means of transcending earthly affairs and placing oneself in union with God.[3]
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "On the other hand, the Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose overexcited imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences."[3] Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of Judaic principles of faith.
Its mystic mode of explaining some commandments was applied by its commentators to all religious observances, and produced a strong tendency to substitute mystic Judaism in the place of traditional rabbinic Judaism.[3] For example, Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath, began to be looked upon as the embodiment of God in temporal life, and every ceremony performed on that day was considered to have an influence upon the superior world.[3]
Elements of the Zohar crept into the liturgy of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the religious poets not only used the allegorism and symbolism of the Zohar in their compositions, but even adopted its style, e.g. the use of erotic terminology to illustrate the relations between man and God.[3] Thus, in the language of some Jewish poets, the beloved one's curls indicate the mysteries of the Deity; sensuous pleasures, and especially intoxication, typify the highest degree of divine love as ecstatic contemplation; while the wine-room represents merely the state through which the human qualities merge or are exalted into those of God.[3]
In the 17th century, it was proposed that only Jewish men who were at least 40 years old could study Kabbalah, and by extension read the Zohar, because it was believed to be too powerful for those less emotionally mature and experienced.
[edit] Neo-Platonism This section requires expansion.
Founded in the 3rd century CE by Plotinus, The Neoplatonist tradition has clear echoes in the Zohar, as indeed in many forms of mystical spirituality, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. The concept of creation by successive emanations of God in particular is characteristic of neoplatonist thought. In both Kabbalistic and Neoplatonist systems, the Logos, or Divine Wisdom, is the primordial archetype of the universe, and mediates between the divine idea and the material world. Jewish commentators on the Zohar expressly noted these Greek influences.[16] [edit] Christian mysticismAccording to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Johann Reuchlin, Aegidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth of Christianity.[17] They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain Christian dogmas, such as the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, which seems to be expressed in the Zohar in the following terms:
'The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' [Ayin]'"[17] (Zohar, iii. 288b).
However, many passages in the Zohar talk about the unity and uniqueness of God, in the Jewish understanding of it, rather than the Trinity. One of the most common phrases in the Zohar is "raza d'yichuda "the secret of his Unity" which describes the Oneness of God as completely indivisible, even in spiritual terms.
The above phrase of the three heads, according to the kabbalists has extremely different connotations, as it is known that the Zohar is written in heavily coded terms according to Jewish tradition, and its true meaning is revealed only to the very righteous. However, the simple meaning of that above phrase, according to Jewish sources, has no relation at all to the Trinity. According to Judaism, God Himself is incomprehensible.
However, our relation to God is His Divine Presence. This may be comparable to a man in a room - there is the man himself, and his presence and relationship to others in the room. In Hebrew, this is known as the "Shechinah". It is also the concept of God's Name - it is His relationship and presence in the world towards us. The Wisdom (literally written as Field of Apples) in kabbalistic terms refers to the Shechinah, the Divine Presence. The Unknowable One (literally written as the Miniature Presence) refers to events on earth when events can be understood as natural happenings instead of God's act, although it is actually the act of God. This is known as perceiving the Shechinah through a blurry, cloudy lens. This means to say, although we see God's Presence (not God Himself) through natural occurrences also, it is only through a blurry lens, as opposed to miracles, in which we clearly see and recognize God's presence in the world. The Holy Ancient One refers to God Himself, Who is imperceivable. (see Minchas Yaakov and anonymous commentary in the Siddur Beis Yaakov on the Sabbath hymn of Askinu Seudasa, composed by the Arizal based on this lofty concept of the Zohar). This is the simple understanding of that phrase in the Zohar by Jews, however, as understood, there are many deeper and secret kabbalistic interpretations which are not open to the public.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "This and other similar doctrines found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity, but the Christian scholars who were led by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar."[17]
edit] English translationsMatt, Daniel C., trans. Zohar: Pritzker Edition (5 vols. to date). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004-2009. (The first five volumes of a projected 12-volume, comprehensively annotated English translation) 2.^ Beyer 1986: 38–43; Casey 1998: 83–6, 88, 89–93; Eerdmans 1975: 72.
3.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah Jacobs, Joseph; Broydé, Isaac. "Zohar". Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls Company. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z#406.
4.^ Scharfstein, Sol (2004). Jewish History and You II. Jewish History and You. Jersey City, NJ, USA: KTAV Publishing House. pp. 24. 5.^ Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai - Lag BaOmer at OU.ORG
6.^ e.g. Siddur Sim Shalom edited by Jules Harlow 7.^ http://enterthezohar.com 8.^ http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/the-zohar/revealing-the-zohar 9.^ Bechinat ha-Dat ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43, in the Jacobs and Broyde, "The Zohar," Jewish Encyclopedia
10.^ See Rabbi Menachem Schneerson (the Tzemach Tzedek), Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 33, p. 98, where the author, quoting a response Reb Hillel Paritcher related from Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (the Baal HaTanya) (quoted also in the beginning of Shar Kakolel) explains that where there is an argument between Kabbalah and Poskim (legal scholars), the former should be followed. For it is impossible to say that the Kabbalah is in contradiction with the Talmud itself. Rather, the Kabbalists and the legal scholars have variant understanding of the explanation of the Talmud. See also Rabbi David ben Solomon ibn Zimra (the Radvaz) (Chelek 4, Siman 1,111) and Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi (the Chacham Tzvi) (Siman 36) (cited in Shaarei Teshuva 25:14). See also the Responsa of Menachem Schneerson (Responsa Tzemach Tzedek A.H. Siman 18,4) and Divrei Nechemia (Responsa Divrei Nechemia O.H. 21). It should be noted however that the views of the Radvaz and of the Chacham Tzvi are that one should follow the opinion of the Zohar only where a conclusive statement has not been made by the legal authorities (Gemara or Poskim), or when an argument is found between the Poskim. The above quoted view, attributed to the Baal HaTanya, would thus be accepted as authoritative by followers of the Baal HaTanya, followers of the Ben Ish Chai, and followers of other Halacha codifiers who accept to follow the rulings of Kabala over those of the Poskim. Such include: some Chassidim, select Sefardim, and other well known groups.
11.^ [1] 12.^ The Zohar's Mysterious Origins 13.^ Sinai 14.^ Dan, Joseph Kabbalah: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2006, p 22 15.^ Rabbi Michael Laitman, PhD. "The Book of Zohar". kabbalah.info. http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/2842?/eng/content/view/full_list/2842&main. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
16.^ For example, the Porta Coelorum of Rabbi Abraham Cohen Irira, which forms the third part of Rosenroth's Apparatus in Librum Sohar, was written expressly to exhibit the correspondences between Kabbalistic dogmas and the Platonic philosophy. (See A.E. Waite, The Holy Kabbalah: a study of the secret tradition in Israel, London 1924, reprinted 1996), p.71ff. 17.^ a b c Jacobs, Joseph; Broydé, Isaac. "Zohar". Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls Company. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z#406.
Tenen, Stan, "Zohar, B'reshit, and the Meru Hypothesis: Scholars debate the origins of Zohar", Meru Foundation eTorus Newsletter #40, July 2007 Blumenthal, David R. Three is not enough: Jewish Reflections on Trinitarian Thinking, in Ethical Monotheism, Past and Present: Essays in Honor of Wendell S. Dietrich, ed. T. Vial and M. Hadley (Providence, RI), Brown Judaic Studies: The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism, Geoffrey Dennis, Llewellyn Worldwide, 2007 Studies in the Zohar, Yehuda Liebes (Author), SUNY Press, SUNY series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion, 1993 Challenging the Master: Moshe Idel’s critique of Gershom Scholem Micha Odenheimer, MyJewishLearning.Com, Kabbalah and Mysticism Scholem, Gershom, Zohar in Encyclopadeia Judaica, Keter Publishing Scholem, Gershom, Kabbalah in Encyclopadeia Judaica, Keter Publishing Margolies, Reuvein "Peninim U' Margolies" and "Nitzotzei Zohar" (Heb.), Mossad R' Kook Luria, David "Kadmus Sefer Ha'Zohar" (Heb.) Unterman, Alan Reinterpreting Mysticism and Messianism, MyJewishLearning.Com, Kabbalah and Mysticism Adler, Jeremy, Beyond the Law: the artistry and enduring counter-cultural power of the kabbala, Times Literary Supplement 24 February 2006, reviewing: Daniel C Matt, translator The Zohar; Arthur Green A Guide to the Zohar; Moshe Idel Kabbalah and Eros.
THE SWORD OF WORDS
REVOLVER EVOLVER LOVER
REVOLVER EVOLVER LOVER
THE SWORD OF WORDS
WORKS WELL WHEN WATCHED
WORKS WELL WHEN WATCHED
EVOLVE LOVE LOVE EVOLVE
|
 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
