Talk:Sefirot

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

Sephirot[edit]

Sigh ... there is NOTHING in Hebrew to imply that 'sephirot' means 'emanations'. The root s-p-r points to the semantic field of book-story-(re-)counting, but in this case it's almost certainly a borrowed word cognate with 'spheres'. As someone else has pointed out, this article is a total mess, a mishmash of unrelated statements many of which have no foundation in fact.

Umm... WHAT? What is this article even about? Is it a religious thing? From which religion?[edit]

Um this has to be one of the worse articles on this Wiki. Nothing is explained for those who don't already know what it is. I have no bloody clue what a sephirot is. Just look at the intro text. I hoped to get a typical, clear, Wiki-like explanation - "A sephirot is a X from Y religion, and it's believed it does Z." But instead what is this. I didn't even manage to understand what religion it's from. And don't call me uneducated, because otherwise what's the point of an encyclopedia if not to give you a simple run-down of a topic you know nothing about. Someone please simplify the intro of this article, and for the love of God, please add what religion it's from and what the hell it is. Where does it originate? In a holy book? A philosophy? Jeez.

--213.149.51.218 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Darthnixa[reply]

See above. Yes, it's a complete mess.

Protected?[edit]

Why is this page protected? Morgan Leigh 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anon user has been spamming a link to an external original research POV site on this page and several others for quite some time now. Every time the link is removed he or she has quickly readded it without talk. Jayjg protected this page and a few relevant others in the hopes that it would inspire the anon user to come to the talk pages and present a case for the link - failing that, the sprotects are to prevent the link spamming. Dbratton 10:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Errors and Changes[edit]

You know, The letters are actualy disputed. The biggest one that you will most often see is the path from keter to hockmah, While some believe it is Aleph, others (especialy jewish) kabbalahists recognise the path as Bet. There are more but are far more analectical and detailed.

Um, I also noticed a lack of links to any sepiroths besides Da'ath. So I figured I would add them.

Jaynus _Izanagi 17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bahir derives the paths between the Sephiroth from an analysis of the mother, double and single letters. I have the 1979 Weiser edition of Kaplan, not the 1995 Aronson edition in the References section, it has--Crazy SunShine 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)--Crazy SunShine 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) a chart on page 155. I won't cover it all here, but just to give you an idea, it places He on the path from Keter to Chokhmah. If you or anyone else has a source for the scheme that uses Bet in that position I'd like to make a table showing all three systems or any others that can be documented.--Crazy SunShine 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed Sephirah to Sephiroth in the first line of The Pillars section since it should be plural. The entire article needs to be cleaned up as far as spelling goes. Whether its Sephirah and Sephiroth or Sefirah and Sefirot isn't as important as consistency. It's more than I want to do right now. I may get to it tomorrow. < Puck 12:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to clean up the inconsistencies in spelling and plural/singular usage. I chose to use the first spelling in the definitions at the top of the page. I also capitalized all instances of Sephirah and Sephiroth as they are understood by some to represent names or attributes of Deity. There were a few instances of singular where plural should be and vice versa. I didn't change anything in the external links cause I didn't want to break them. I also removed the link to [[Sephirah (Kabbalah)|Sephirot]] in the Paths and Sephiroth section because it now redirects here. The Unicode Hebrew in the first line breaks awkwardly after the first parenthesis, but that seems to be the nature of the beast. I may try to fix it later. < Puck 01:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section on The Pillars says "Central column [...] The Sephirot within are represented differently gender-wise [...] the Sephirot are sexually split. In [that] case, Binah and Malkhut are female, while all the other sephirot are male." Maybe I'm mistaken here, but the central column consists of Kether, (Daath,) Tiphareth, Yesod, Malkuth.. So, what does Binah do in this sentence? --80.126.7.250 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the explanation of the sexual attributions of the pillars and of the sephiroth. I hope it makes more sense now.

Morgan Leigh 11:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A yes, I now see what you meant. Although as with all things kaballah, this attribution raises questions (which is a Good Thing); For example, the attribution female to Binah makes sense to me. Malkuth female also makes sense, although a bit less- but it's much less clear to me why the other sefirot are male (Yesod for example seems to have a strong female aspect to it, the fluid moon)
Also, what does it mean that, say, Hod is on the female pillar. how is this female attribution appearant in Hod? it's female opposed to Nezach? etc
So i guess i'm looking for maybe a small explanation why this is considered as it is, or maybe a citation, link etc. so I can read up on it-- as this attribution Binah-Malkuth-female is quite new to me, I've always considered female pillar-->female sefirot. (I understand this may be difficult, thanks anyway)
Re Yesod and the Moon. I know what you mean about the Moon leading you to think that Yesod is female... Binah and Malkuth are considered feminine in Jewish Kabbalah. Yesod does not have the attribute of the Moon in JK. In JK Yesod is attributed to the divine phallus and Malkuth is attributed to the Moon. JK sees Malkuth as the portal through which the divine light passes to reach creation, whereas Hermetic Qabbalah sees Malkuth as the Earth, and thus creation. In HQ things are quite different re the gendering of the sefirot, Yesod, Malkuth, Netzach and Binah are generally female, which is to say they do have masculine qualities, but overall are female. The other sefirot are all generally male. The bit about each sephirah being male in respect to the sephirah following it and female to the sephirah before it still applies in HQ. Basically here male = active, giving and female = passive, receiving. I have edited the article a bit to reflect this info.
Ah yes, exactly. My problem seems exactly this, the seperation between HQ en JK. I was referring to the HQ. much better now, thanks. Actually, this is a bit unclear over the whole article. I was reading your suggestion on the talk page to create a specific HQ page: this seems like a good idea. I am certainly no expert on the subject, but willing to contribute nevertheless --Wires 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Hod - As I mentioned above, Hod is generally seen as a male sephirah, being represented by Hermes, the intellect etc and Netzach as female, Venus, emotions etc. The fact that they are on the opposite pillar to their own sexual attribution is interesting isn't it... Consider that in each sefirot there is another complete tree and you may understand this better. Everything flows, balance is, each contains all and all contain each. But I am probably getting weird now so I'll stop.
Morgan Leigh 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*grins* making total sense here, no problem. thanks for the explanation.

Occult vs. Jewish Language & Understanding[edit]

Kabbalah as understood through a Crowleyan lens (thus as Qabbalah) or even Gnosticism (Cabala) is innacurrate and "untrue" to the original sources of Kabbalistic teaching and knowledge. This article is written from the Occultist perspective and thus seems to generally misunderstand many of the concepts, as they have been skewed by the "uninitiated" who understood neither Hebrew nor Jewish theology well-enough to make their assertions.

Mobius1ski 15:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could the dispute be settle by editing this article to follow the chronological development of the Tree of Life? There is good enough reference material available from the likes of Gershom Scholem, Aryeh Kaplan, Moshe Idel, Daniel Matt and others, that a good writer, "uninitiated" or not, could cover the traditional Jewish perspective and distinguish it from the Syncretism that has occurred in last couple thousand years. This article does need a lot of work. It does not distinguish the linguistic from the theosophical schools and makes no mention of Abulafia or Abraham Gikatilla. While that material is broader than the limited scope of this article, their influence on the understanding of the Tree of Life should be included. It also needs to do a better job of covering the Gentile perspective better. There is much back and forth between the Christian and Hermetic adaptations, but there are important differences as well. It would be disingenuous to say that anything beyond a traditional should not be included, but I agree that there should be very clear distinctions between and among the all the perspectives. Like it or not the Tree of Life is no longer an exclusively Jewish archetype. It belongs to the world now and this article should reflect that. If that were done in a bit more of a systematic approach from a NPOV would you still dispute it? < Puck 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading what I wrote makes me realize I am most definitely not the person to attempt the challenging task I described. I doubt that will stop me from trying to clarify this page along those lines, though. Fools rush in... < Puck 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thre is no such person as Abraham Gikitilla. His name is Yosef. True, the Sephirot are no longer solely a Jewish concept, as with the old testament and associated writings. Unfortunately no one has ever bothered to ask the Jews if they minded having their sacred traditions bootlegged by various non-Jewish groups. So there must necessarily be something to distinguish true Kabbalah from the twisted versions from other sources.

His name is Yosef. Yeah, when I wrote that I just glanced at the title page of of Avi Weinstein's translation of The Gates of Light, where he refers to him as Rabbi Joseph, the son of Abraham Gikatilla. Sorry for the mistake.
Bootlegged? Are you saying it has a copyright of some kind? It could be argued that monotheism was bootlegged by Moses from the Egyptians. I wonder if anyone ever asked them if they minded.

This comment indicates an almost laughable ignorance of both Jewish and Egyptian history... There is no evidence of any connection whatsoever between the brief flowering (and rapid fading) of monotheism in the Egyptian world and the later rise in Judaism. Point is, there are religious concepts specifically Jewish (the sefirot, the hebrew bible), just as their are religious concepts specifically Navaho or Egyptian, which can never be effectively understood when taken out of the context of their parent religiont...

I agree with you that there needs to be a clear distinction, if for no other reason than that an encyclopedia should help to understand the development of concepts not muddle them all together. On the other hand twisted implies that you consider developments outside of Judaism to be somehow inferior or perverted. Do you also think English is a twisted version of German? Whether you or anyone else likes it or not Kabbalah does have a history outside of the Judaic tradition. An encyclopedia should present that history objectively, without making judgments about it.--◀Pucktalk▶ 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern English is in fact a twisted version of Middle English, itself a twisted version of Old English, itself a twisted version of the dialects spoken by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. German has an entirely different linguistic history. The Kabbalah, on the other hand, we cannot deny is of entirely Jewish origin - and as such can only be fully comprehended in that context.

I would like to suggest that an article on Hermetic Qabalah and one on Christian Kabbalah be created. This way everyone gets their own space to make explanations and this may result in people not feeling like their feet are getting stepped on. At present Hermetic Qabalah is practically a footnote to Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Qabalah doesn't have a page. Both are systems about which as much can be said as has been said about Jewish Kabbalah. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and work on this endevour. Anyone else interested? Morgan Leigh 10:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding that I know little or nothing about the subject outside of some brief discussions with people, skimming this article and reading this talk page; it seems like it would be useful to place some discussion of history, development, etc at a central page with links off to discussions of each of the specific types. Darker Dreams 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great idea conceptually. However it may not solve the problem of the tension between the variety of schools of thought regarding Kabbalah/Qabbalah. In fact, I can see how it could open a whole new can of worms. I suggest that the same people who express unhappy views about the 'correctness' or otherwise of other's opinions may similarly express unhappy thoughts at the idea that their 'correct' tradition may be derived from, or influenced by, other 'incorrect', or even blasphemous, ideas. An example of this is the comment which was left on the Tree of life (Kabbalah) page regarding Dr. Parpola's work, which theorises on the possibility of the Kabbalistic tree being derived from Babylonian religion. The writer made the point that Dr. Parpola's views are considered blasphemous by some (if not all) Jews. While it may, or may not, be true that some Jews consider this work blasphemous, this assertion is not (IMHO) a serious argument regarding its potential truth value. There is so much uncertainty regarding the derivation of the ideas expressed in Kabbalah that the application of the method you suggest may cause more unhappiness than the excellent utility this idea would at first appear to offer. Morgan Leigh 07:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that including the disclaimers you just noted in whatever historical discription were generated would satisfy anyone (according to A the history is thus, however this is apocraphal to B, C, and D. According to B the history is thus, however this is blasphemous to D. According to C, B is correct except that it leaves out certain components which make it blasphemous to A as well as compounding it's blasphemies to D...). Realistically, the only compromise I can see with such entrenched camps is for them to each make their own version of the page, none claiming to be "true," only "true to view X." Then they find a mutually agreeable ("neutral") individual or group to make the "central" page which should link to each, discuss the differences, and make sure that the appropriate cross-linkages are done between the groups. Personally, I think it's just too much work ... but I'd like to have the whole range of information available and accurately categorized. Darker Dreams 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I sugest that instead of approaching the various commentaries on the 'Tree of Life', Jewish and Gentile, by focusing on thier differences on the home page that we focus on their commonalities and fundamentally similar intentions. I for one am really tired of hearing this endless fighting over nothing of any real kabalistic significance. It's a tradition, whether Jewish or Gentile, of the investigation and discussion of a general system theory of life. A means to exercise ones ability to use their reasoning abilities with others of like interest in the finer mysteries of life. To spend time fighting over who started this tradition of discusion is a waste of good minds on a mute point. And it only perpetuates disputes and animosities that only distract us from the true Kabalistic tradition of creating a most harmonious life on earth and in heaven. Ah but now I ramble so I'll stop. Neutral Notions 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a complicated subject that can be easily misinterpreted. I want to take this opportunity to humbly support the original posting by Mobius1ski. There are people who spend their lives studying Kabbalah and Chassidus. Why? Because it is a very complicated subject, and there is a long history that contributes to its understanding. There are Rabbis who commit to life long study, prayer, and charity as a vehicle for understanding Kabbalah. This has been going on for thousands of years. I am not saying this to exclude anyone (non-Jews / non religious Jews…) from Kabbalah. I just want to provide this as a bit of perspective. To attempt to document the Tree of Life in a Wiki is bound to evocate some very strong emotions and some equally inaccurate conclusions. I think that this article is a wonderful way to increase awareness of Kabbalah. And hopefully it will encourage many people further investigation into the subject. If you have the patience and the desire to learn, go find an Orthodox or Chassidic synagogue and make an appointment with a Rabbi. Again, I am not trying to discourage any Christians, Non-Jews, or Secular Jews from exploring this topic. I just agree that it is delicate, frequently misunderstood, and often taken out of context. thank you.

I would like to weigh in on this concept that Qabalah was created by the Jews, and that everyone else is "bootlegging" their material. It is simply untrue. The Qabalah arose during the 12th Century in Spain, where Jewish, Christian, Muslim AND Pagan scholars were freely intermixing and sharing ideas. The Zohar itself was written during this period and reflects this massive meeting of minds and spiritual insight. The Jewish Qabalah contains many obvious borrowings from Gnosticism (esp. the Sephiroth themselves!), Babylonian mysticism and much more. So, sorry, the Rabbis do not own the Qabalah. This does NOT mean that there isn't a Jewish Qabalah, which one must be initiated into in order to understand. However, the concept that anyone NOT initiated into THAT particular thread of Qabalistic study has "got it all wrong" or "corrupted" Jewish teachings is just plain silly, historically inaccurate, and overwhelmingly biggoted. Kheph777 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kheph777. Kabbalah/Qabalah arose out of a highly syncretic mix of esoteric traditions, many of them non-Jewish -- especially Neoplatonism and perhaps Gnosticism. For instance, (neo-)Pythagorean theories of emanation by number apparently led to the conception of the Sephiroth (though various Jewish scholars have historically tried to explain the striking similarities in doctrine by claiming that the Greek philosophers cribbed their ideas from Kabbalah, not the other way around). The Kabbalah was taught to non-Jews from very early on (by Abraham Abulafia, for instance; Ramon Llull and Arnald of Villanova seem to demonstrate Kabbalistic influences in their work [M Idel 1988 "Ramon Llull and Ecstatic Kabbalah" in Journal of the Warburg and Caurtauld Institutes 51]). It found its way openly into (non-Jewish) Hermetic philosophy at least as early as the 15th Century, and has ever since remained a key element of that philosophy. In the mean-time, Jews had to pursue and develop their Kabbalah in a cryptic and secretive manner, because of the ancient prohibition on discussing matters relating to the divine world; it was difficult to distinguish from orthodox Jewish writing and could not be openly discussed until the 16th or 17th century. Jewish academic interest in the Kabbalah only really took off in the 19th century. So apart from the fact that it utilises the language and literature of the Torah, and it now has a strong Jewish following, should it really be considered an exclusively Jewish system?
There is nothing to be gained by arguing whom Kabbalah 'belongs' to or who has the 'correct' interpretation. It's like trying to argue whose branch of Christianity is the 'correct' one. Fuzzypeg★ 00:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed?[edit]

The tree of life is both used in judaism and outside of it. Negating the history and influences of Judaism, Occultism, or Christianity would be an unfair bias. Similarly, Just because someone agree's more with hesiod then homer in greek mythology doesn't mean you delete or dispute the origins and influences of either hesiod or homer. You just show both views and explain when which view is which. The article is not perfect, but I (Jaynus) Have added a lot of jewish information on this article from documents such as the bahir, the idra rabba, and the yetzirah. All of which are originated from jewish kabbalah.

I agree; as one who knows nothing about kabbalah, either Jewish or occult, I'd like to see both viewpoints represented.--151.203.145.149 18:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. If there are multiple views of the subject, it would be most correct to document them all without stating that one is more or less correct than the other. Nortonew 15:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best solution would be to split this into two articles: one for the Jewish Kabbalistic perspective specifically, and one representing alternative uses. I agree that all perspectives on the subject should be represented, but the fact of the matter remains that jewish mysticism didn't just influence alternative notions of the tree of life, those notions adopted the jewish concept and modified it to their needs.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but I think that the tree of life as represented within jewish traditions deserves special note. Furthermore, by mere virtue of the fact that it has been adopted by multiple traditions, there will always be disputes if these different ideologies are attempted to be represented simultaneuosly at once. For instance, the original jewish notions of the tree have nothing to do with the chakras, but magik and new-age philosophy have rather elegantly consolidated the philosophies. Still, representing the tree with respect to a heirarchy of human chakras is representative of a conception of the tree that the foundations for much of the rest of the article may disagree with.

Please note, this is just one example. There are those of you who may disagree with me in this specific point, but my general argument still stands. I think the best thing we could do would be to split the article, that way we could present all the representtions of the tree. Shaggorama 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be pointing to a possible solution. I am currently working on a series of article on Hermetic Qabalah though it may be several weeks if not months before any of them are ready for prime time. In the meantime it I think it would be helpful if this article is edited to clarify the distinctions. <Puck 10:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some edits that I think should help, moving things in and out of the occult section, but I'm not sure whether it is enough. What do you think - time to remove the template or not? Denial 17:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but I just checked the history and I don't see what you did. I never thought it should have gotten a disputed tag in the first place. If there were a sloppy tag... well.--◀Pucktalk▶ 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Looks like I mistook a preview for the real thing. Never mind, I'll try again. Denial 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I hate it when that happens. I've actually gotten into the habit of working on big edits offline or in my sandbox just for that reason. I've found myself checking something trivial, like a link, going off on some tangent that strikes my deficient attention and end working my way back to the article I was working on only to find that I never saved it.--◀Pucktalk▶ 02:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the article is concerned with the dispute between jewish and other sources. Why does there have to be a dominate definition? When one explains socialism, do they only define socialism as what marx wrote? No. You outline the various kinds of socialistic theories and thoughts. Similarly, While there is quite a large difference between Jewish interpretation and Hermetic interpretation and Christian interpretation, and kaosite, thelemic, etc. etc. Why not Take a document like say "sefer sepiroth" and write the explaination and definition of the sepiroths as thelema interprutes them and make it very clear it was a thelemic interpretation. For the jewish interpretation, use documents such as the palm tree of devorah, the sefer yetzirah, bahir, zohar, etc. And write down the definitions there-in. Christian interpretation, use christian authors and varified almost dogmatic christian kabbalahistic documents, kaosite? Peter Carrol. Hermetic? Papus, Eliphas Levi, Mathers, Waite? (written by jaynus, i keep changing isp's and forgetting my password)

What?[edit]

"The ten energy streams that constitute Gods procreation of itself into a new dimension (ours) are contained in the planets geomagnetic energy grid and fractally within our bodies, whether called chakras or sephiroth. When eventually Gaias sea of humanity joins to form planetary wide mindshare our ten fingers will begin the next dance of creation, tantrically weaving our next reality web of superbeing, utilising the ten sephiroth"

As someone who knows absolutely nothing about kabbalah or the tree of life, the above statement makes no sense whatsoever. I have no idea at all what the writer is trying to confer. Could someone make a little more sense of that?--151.203.145.149 18:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having some knowledge on occult subjects, I believe I get the gist of what the author was trying to say. However, the paragraph above contains too much unexplained terminology and is written in too "poetic" a form to be a good encyclopedia entry. Also, it contains a lot of different ideas all mushed together without explaining any of them. At any rate, it looks like the paragraph was removed from the article already. Nortonew 16:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I think what the author is saying is that everything that is, is made up of the energy that is god and that the microcosm of god exists (in it's entirety) in every partical(monad) in "creation" or existence. (see also Macrocosm and microcosm)

I understand your fustrations on trying to tie words with feelings. try to keep your vision simple and 'listen' to the words you read. This paragraph is essential to understand something very important. That we human beings are the most intelligent and most advanced 'composition'. We are made from the same molecules from which the universe was created. Thus being advanced gives us one crucial purpose and possibility. The power to change the world around you. And if you are changing the world and 'protecting' life, the earth will help you and everything that has life too. because the earth and the universe (animals, plants minerals ect..) is connected to you in every sense. not only on the physical 'molecular' level, but also the spiritual 'molecular' level. Life has a simple purpose, to keep on going.....forever.....JB...=)

I've been editing the articles regarding the individual sephirah. I noticed the links aren't always regular from this page. The problem is that some are linking to, for example, 'Yesod', and some to 'Yesod (Kabbalah)', and nothing is formalised. Spelling is also a problem. I want to write something about Daath, but I'm not sure where it is now. I'm not really sure how to fix it all, it would be helpful if somehow both 'Yesod' and 'Yesod ( kabbalah )' went to the same place, as would all the different variations of spelling, like Malkuth, Malkhut etc. Every article I have edited I have written under 'Non-Jewish' kabbalah, as a non-jew, but some of the concepts may in fact be applicable to Jewish kabbalah. I have a copy of 'The Palm tree of Devorah', which details ethical practices related to each Sephirah, from which I may copy information into each article. --Krsnajinana 14:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c: I think there is a place for this form of poetic disclosure: in an anonymous blockquote, captioned with a statement indicating that it is a useful and interesting piece of poetry which may aid an intuitive understanding of a particular fragment of what is going on in this primarily spiritual idea. This kind of thing is important for people to really *understand* bizarre concepts at the edge of linguistic description; I think it should definitely be included, but it should be set apart from the rest of the work and clearly marked for what it is. --Penumbra 2k 16:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up[edit]

OK, I have gone on a sort of wikipedia kabbalah binge, trying to fill in some information on the missing sephirah, and trying to sort out the problem of links, by creating a lot of re-directs on some alternative spellings.

I've also had a go cleaning up this article, as it was kind of messy, difficult to read, with some controversial statements and a lot of repetition. I'm trying to respect the views of what other people have posted here, while also making some substantial cuts. This is what I have done.

I got rid of the whole section 'overview', because there already seemed to be an overview at the beginning, and it was just repeating itself. I only kept the bit about the tree of life relating to the human body, and moved it into the occult bit. I know it is actually a traditional view to associate the sephirah with parts of the body, but I'm putting it there until someone finds a good home for it, or even it's own section.

I got rid of the bit about Daath being the same as Kether, because sometimes Daath is seen as being the same as Malkuth, one being the position of this sephirot before the fall, the other being it's position afterwards. In any case, to avoid the controversy, and to improve the flow of the article, I think that controversy should be left to the article on 'Daath', or at least a lot later in the article, perhaps in a new section regarding the metaphysics of how the spheres are said to emanate each other.

The section on 'attributes' was really confusing, and seemed to contradict the first part of the article, which says all the sephira exist in all the worlds. So, I think there should be seperate articles on each of the 4 worlds to discuss this, and more information can be put into the articles relating to each of the sephira. Therefore, I have removed the section, because it is essentially repetition.

I then gave the pillars their own heading, and someone might include some other forms of organisation, such as the 3 triads, etc.

I hope the changes are appreciated. --Krsnajinana 19:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kircher Tree[edit]

I added an image of the Kircher Tree of Life with Hebrew letters on the paths in the Paths and Sephiroth section. I'm currently working on one of the Lurianic Tree as well. I hope to be able to add it in the next day or two. < Puck 12:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahir Tree[edit]

I added an image of the Barhir Tree of Life with Hebrew letters on the paths in the main section and moved the Kircher Tree image to the same location. I was going to call this the Lurianic Tree, but I had trouble trying to find a definitive description of Luria's conception. I called this the Bahir Tree because I based it on diagram in Aryeh Kaplan's translation of the Bahir. <Puck 08:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNANOUNCED MAJOR EDIT (move from tree of life)[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 08:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised by it myself. I was a little confused at first, but after looking at the history of the pages involved I kind of figured out what happened. I'm a bit of a latecomer to this page so I didn't feel like I had much stake in exactly where it resides, but I can understand how some people might get upset by the way this move was handled.--◀Pucktalk▶ 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard term is Sephirot or Sefirot[edit]

The following is being cross-posted at Talk:Tree of life (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]

A few Things[edit]

These are a few things regarding the issues raised here:

1. Kabbalah is originally a type of Jewish occultism. Many conceptions - religious and non-religious - are related to its origin and foundation. In its core Kabbalah is purely gnosis, in that it was meant to be taught to a chosen few, not to be even known of its existence by the masses. I think there is a place to note in this article the Jews' refusal to teach Kabbalah to those not of the "chosen few" who are the wisest and most learned in the ways of Judaism. The wide-spread teaching of Kabbalah is in its core a non-Jewish thing.

2. If you would ask a German what is English for him, most of them would indeed call it twisted German. In the same manner, I assume Jews (as I assume the one who brought it up above is, and as I am) would see any non-Jewish use of Kabbalah as twisted.

3. In what ways were Egyptians - ancient ones, monotheistic? That is in what way can you "accuse" Moshe of bootlegging monotheology from the Egyptians? There were small monotheistic religions before Judeism, but non of that which I know of were Egyptian.

4. There should be a clear separation between Jewish Kabbalah to that of non-Jewish one - as a form of "respect" to the original writers, who in core were Jewish in their own way (Judaism is a complex thing by far more then appeared at first as many disagree on how the face of it should look - much the same way Christianity is going.). I believe further stressing out should be made as to what is in the original Jewish Kabbalah and what is not.

5. Kabbalah in its true origin is written in a language fewer and fewer understand. It is not written in modern Hebrew, thus many interpretations and translation have been made to it. I believe that this article should include a section explaining the Hebrew names, their origins and other related issues, for those of the majority of readers who do not know Hebrew.

6. Official Hebrew-to-English transliteration rules (HTETrans) (My mom is an information scientist and expert librarian and archiver) dictates writing "Sephiroth" as the word is in the letter Pheh (a weak, unstressed, Peh). F is not usable in HTETrans as it has no real Hebrew counterpart. Also, Taff is in general also weak at the end of words, correctly pronounced Thaff. (Therefore Sephiroth)

7. Regarding favoritism: If, say, an offer would be accepted to separate this info to several texts (I generally not in favor of such thing) it has been raised that having the dichotomy Jewish-not-Jewish would be favoritism to Judaism by Wikipedia, I do not believe so. Originally, as noted, Kabbalah was Jewish, as such all non-Jewish Kabbalah are in a sense just a "copy" of the original, a "stolen" thing in a sense. Kabbalah is Jewish in nature, therefore everything non-Jewish is just that - variations to the original. I believe the original should be given priority over non-original. In the exact same way as the bible has its own place, and all other writings are for Jews just that non-biblical (at least in the branch of Judaism I come form).

8. " Sephirot, Sephiroth, or Sefiroth (סְפִירוֹת), singular: Sephirah, also Sefirah (סְפִירָה "enumeration" in Hebrew)." This is fundamentally not true. The word Sephiroth (סְפִירוֹת)(As correctly pronounced and punctuated) has no lingual connection in Hebrew with the world Sphira (סְפִירָה). An explanation is in due. There are here two words very much alike: Sphera (plural: Spherot) and Sphira. Sphera is a sphere in Hebrew, while sphira means "counting." Although sound and seemed alike they have no academic-lingual connection. The word "Sephiroth" (as correctly transliterated - see above) is a way of saying "Spheres", as in the connection of spherical-like world, in which each level and layer is surrounding the previous one. Jewish mysticism desipite God as in everywhere - heaven and hell, not only in heaven above, therefor its existence surrounds everything, it is therefor spherical in nature. The singular correct form is "Sephira", while "counting" is pronounced "Sphira". The mistake is thus well understood. I do not tend to change articles in Wikipedia without roper prompt, so if approval is granted I shall change the above sentence, and add a small part about Hebrew-English and the Hebrew language' (very brief with link to the proper article). XonoX 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last point, see my following comments to Talk:Sephirah (Kabbalah), made several months ago:
"While the Hebrew word "s'phira" does seem to be unrelated to the Greek "s'phaera" ("s'phira" in Hebrew usually means counting (n.)) one finds instances in Midrashic literature where the word "s'phaera" is used in Aramaic text and is translated as ball. Where the word "s'phaera" is used in Aramaic, it either shares the consonental spelling of "s'phira" (Samekh-Phay-Yud-Reish-Hei), or the end Hei is replaced by an Aleph (Samekh-Phay-Yud-Reish-Aleph). It does not, however, share the same vowels, as a tzeirei would replace a khirik under the Phay consonant (changing "s'phira" to "s'phaera"). It seems that "s'phaera" in Midrashic literature is probably derived from Greek. In Greek philosophy, the galaxy was understood based on a stationary Earth model, i.e. Earth was the reference point. To deal with the complications that arise from such a system, the Greeks operated with the cosmological celestial spheres model. This was the basis for the Greeks' relation to the planets, which they believed represented their gods. In some views of Kabbalah, the Greeks were correct that the system of celestial spheres represents something meaningful, but that the meaningful representation relates to "s'phirot/s'phaerot," not "gods." According to this, one can understand the basis for the Greek etymology in "s'phaera" (which is how the word should be pronounced, according to the meaning that relates it to celestial spheres). However, "s'phira" could be understood to indicate counting, as well. Since the "s'phirot" are progressively diluted emenations of spirituality (or progressively refined, depending on which way you count), the meaning countings can be applied to "s'phirot" (which is how the word should then be pronounced, having nothing to do with Greek). We actually find a correlation between the "s'phirot" and a period of counting 49 days between Passover and Shavuot(a biblical command in Judaism)(49 representing a progressive count of all possible combinations of a mix of two "s'phirot," given a seven "s'phira" system, i.e. Chesed of Chesed, Gevura of Chesed, etc.). HKT 16:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)"
The only explicit etymological attribution in rabbinic kabbalistic literature that I have heard of is to the Hebrew root, and this attribution seems not only tenable but likely (given the focus on numerology and progression in Kabbalah and discussion of the sephirot). Nonetheless, sephirot are indeed understood metaphorically as spheres throughout much of rabbinic kabbalistic literature. In any event, the term is pronounced in such a way as to indicate that it probably derives from Hebrew (barring phonetic corruption, the likelyhood of which is questionable given the intensity of focus on precise transmission from master to disciple [see, for example, Bavli Chag. 11b]). On the other hand, perhaps it is possible that the Aramaic variant of sephaera was indeed pronounced as sephira even during Talmudic times. Unfortunately, I lack sufficient expertise to confirm or refute this. HKT 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar manner, the Torah is originally a Jewish text, and some people might say it has been twisted by Christianity and Islam. It's pointless to argue whose interpretation is "correct" or "proper" or even "primary". Jewish use of kabbalah is probably the majority now, so it makes sense that it comes first in the article. I don't see that it should be insulting to describe other usages, though, as long as they are clearly differentiated. Fuzzypeg★ 00:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture section[edit]

Dear DJH47, the concept of references to religion in entertainment is nothing new. If you remove the lists on this article, will you do so for all of the other religious symbols?

As for the charge that the references are "arbitrary", I can imagine that millions of FFVII fanboys (not including me) would dispute that.

Other people's comments are welcome. --Crazy SunShine 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) --Crazysunshine 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This addition violates WP:CRUFT. HKT 13:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:CRUFT is not a policy, even though I agree that this sort of information does nothing to improve the quality of the article. The important issue here is that the "pop culture" section is of little relevence to the Sephirot. --DJH47 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. I mean that this violates the ideal of keeping non-notable info from cluttering articles. I'd agree with your point, as well. A video game or cartoon involving trees doesn't deserve mention in the tree article. HKT 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that if this section were to be deleted here, then should things like Norse mythology in popular culture be deleted too? Deleting references to popular culture in here and retaining it elsewhere doesn't make sense.

Also, that "tree" example is too broad. Of course countless things are going to have trees in them, so trying to list all of them is going to be more harmful and tedious than helpful to the reader (to the point that the list overshadows the rest of the article in size). This reference to a specific symbol is exemplary of the influence that the Sephirot has in the modern world, and shows that entertainers use it as a symbol in their works for various reasons.

As for actually keeping it here, my opinion is rather fuzzy, seeing as I doubt people will say "Oh, that's the tree of life" when they see it elsewhere. I would keep it on the grounds of inclusionism and showing the importance of the Sephirot in modern culture.

Eh, it's just my opinion, but whatever - do what you want to do. --Crazy SunShine 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll suggest a compromise: Retain the references, but in a truncated list form. For example, the start would look something like this:

Influences in popular culture

Because of the Sephirot's influence as a religious symbol, many forms of entertainment have used it in their work. These include:

and so on.

The emphasis is placed on the Sephirot's influence, and not the actual entertainment itself.

Thoughts? --Crazysunshine 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should definitely be included, Evangelion provides an alternative view on the Sephiroth and is a good example of how it can be percieved in different ways. --Chríss 23:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) --86.4.209.80 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am sure I am not the only one who came to this page from Evangelion's link.

lol sepfiroth was in final fantasy 7,so yeah lolz sephiroth rules

STRONGLY SEPARATE[edit]

Structural order of cinnarot (letters, paths) inside Etz Haym (Tree of Life) is TOO MUCH important for all the system and here is MAIN DIFFERENCE between hebrew and occult kabbalah, so I suggest stop further discussions and STRONGLY SEPARATE Jewish/Hebrew Kabbalah (with Bahir Tree) and Occult Quabbalah with Kircher Tree as absolutely different systems with nothing in common except name. So all terms and concepts, including this article, should change names to strictly Hebrew/Jewish and Latin/Occult respectively.

I do not see better solution.

If noone will take action I will understand this silence as approval and will separate these views as different Wiki articles. Is it OK ?

Hi fivetrees, this seems like a good idea. I has been suggested by others as well eg Morgan Leigh --Wires 16:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If any comments -

ICQ: 50416037 MSN: fivetrees@yahoo.com AOL IM: tkadmon YahooIM: fivetrees SKYPE: fivetrees

PS: Cinnor Aleph has the only place - as it was not only written in Sefer Yetzirah - only between Hesed and Gvurah. Analyse original hebrew texts (and more) and u will see where Aleph, Mem & Shin should be.

--fivetrees 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

82.39.156.42 It'd be a good idea if all articles about Kabbalah were separated into Jewish and whatever other ones, and if some kind Jewish scholar, preferably Orthodox, come to enlighten us.

I am working on this presently. I am writing an article on Hermetic Qabbalah and when it is done (in the not too distant future I hope) I will remove all reference to Hermetic Qabbalah from this page. If you want to help with this please contact me on my talk page.
Morgan Leigh 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but notice an excessive amount of focus on the particularities of the different commentaries on the Tree of Life. In particular the difference between the Jewish and Gentile approaches to the subject of life. Let's not forget that the Jewish commentaries on the Tree of Life are just as divergent, especially when it comes to their opinions on what the attributes and paths should be, as the Gentile commentaries. I feel like you are all missing the beauty of the forest by obsessing on one or another particular Tree. They are both trees growing in the forest of life. The origins of the tradition is not as important as the continuation of the conversation on the nature of life. To say that one commentator 'stole' from another seems childish to me and a waste of time. If two people are observing the same object and one makes a comment as to its' nature before the other; did the second observer steal his observation from the first? Of course not, they were simply observing the same object. They can argue all day long over why they interpret what they see, or how to use what they grasp, but they must all agree that they are observing the same object or the discussion would be pointless: We are all just blind men discribing the same elephant from different perspectives. There are many who would like to think that the Jewish and Gentile views are just looking at two completely different realities. Or that somehow, if one saw it first then the others who look at it afterwards are somehow 'stealing' a peek and thereby have no right to make any comments on what they are observing. To continue arguing over the whose commentary is more valid than the others or who was here first only distracts from the greater discussion of life. Instead of focusing on the apparent divisions and differences, try consolidating and harmonizing the two catagories based on their common ground; by diving deeper into the underlining structure and principles of the Tree of Life that are the same in both catagories. --Neutral Notions 17:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I couldn't agree with you more. The reason I am working on seperating this article into strictly jewish and strictly western occult versions is, ironically, to try to make it easier for people to notice that both systems are actually describing the same thing. Experience has shown that people do in fact behave in exactly the manner you have described in your remarks. My hope is that in seperating this article there will be one less thing for people to complain about. People are often threatened when they are confronted with a new interpretation on material which they have known all their lives with one particulare interpretation. Perhaps giving seperate interpretations seperate pages will give such people the space they require to not feel that they have to defend 'their' tradition. Maybe then they will be able to then focus on the commanilities of the various systems instead of only noticing the differences. But don't count on it. :)
Morgan Leigh 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that references to Hermetic Qabbalah should be separate. Also tarot cards have no genuine connection with Kabbalah or with any other form of Judaism. They were originally created for an Italian card game.Smiloid (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological States[edit]

"Commonly a constellation, planet, name of God and/or an element; although other attributes such as psychological states, various verbs, and even foods are also attributed (especially among more modern kabbalists)."

It would be really helpful if someone could include the "psychological state" attributed to each of the Sephiroth. --Chríss 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Rename?[edit]

Why isn't this article named Sephirot? All of the other Wikis that have this article use that name (or something meaning it) without being followed by "Kabbalah" (or a variant thereof) in parenthesis. I am Very strongly in favor that this article be Renamed: there is absolutely no reason why this article should be named this, since, not only is this the original term, but the Sephirot page itself redirects here. All that has to be done is that the content of this page be moved to Sephirot and this be turned into a redirect. Unless there is a very good reason for not renaming this article, it must be Renamed. 24.126.199.129 06:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth; The Sephirot [no parathesis] page that redirects to this one at one time appeared to be a disambiguation for Sephirot that included FFVII villian Sephiroth. I see no reason it shouldn't be renamed.Atechi 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Occultist Kabbalah (no idea of the relevance of this to Jewish Kabbalah, but, y'know, Jewish Kaballah tends to not bother with feeble English spellings at all, so it's a moot point. ;) ), the spelling Sephiroth is much more common. The majority of the people I know still pronounce it as "Sephirot", though. I have been told that "th" is closer to the actual meaning of the Hebrew letter, regardless of the actual pronunciation in this case, but I don't speak Hebrew and do not claim to know enough to be able to validate this statement myself. Think "Charlotte Church drowned in the loch" (oh, if only). You see ch and think ch, however, in that specific word it could be pronounced as sh or as a phlegmy H (not got the energy to dig out the IPA). In a sentence, I think that it should remain as it is currently; Sephirot redirects to Sephiroth (Kaballah). --Veratien 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I motion that the article be moved to Sephiroth instead of Sephirot, as this is the spelling consistently used in the article. SpectrumDT 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image incorrect - Daat is an implied sphere/concept[edit]

I think the image which is used should be changed/updated, since it shows Daat as being a solid sphere.

Now, I know that the map does not show the terrain, however, that image shows it as not only solid, but with paths leading to and from it.

--62.136.97.244 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

;-)

_I don't know how many of disputees are realy interested in the meaning of 'trre of live' or the 'sephirots'_?! But, as far as i know it's irrelevant what others say, as long as it doesn't touch personal 'feelings' of each!!

_Among thoes who study it is known, that you cannot tell a word about anything without knowing it. Otherwise they are lies_! You cannot read or hear about the meaning... :-) That kind of knowledge i call pathethick - out of any power_

_If You ARE interested in the subject... i can deliver 'ancient' info to You_ :-) 


   Are you opened enough __?!$%U(^5680643#%&*(8765$@$&8?     1 3 5 7  

     333   
 
   dhjana@wp.pl

Listing[edit]

   Speaking as a new comer to this subject, one of the first questions I have on the subject is this; "What are the names of the ten attributes and what are these?"

   Shouldn't we list each with a brief summery of what they mean?  206.213.209.31 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronounciation[edit]

The two pictures in the article are not the same. In the upper picture one can read: hokhmah, hesed and netzah. In the picture underneath, one reads: chokhmah, chesed and netzach.

This difference is important because it leads to a different pronounciation. The Jewish language has a "g" or "ch" that is different from e.g. the English language. In the English language, one pronounces "g" as dzj, while in the Jewish language (as well as in the Dutch language) one pronouces the "g" as "gu". It is a sound that the English language doesn't know and it explains the difference between the two trees of life.

These sefirot are power words and therefore the pronounciation has to be correct. So can someone add the precise pronounciation of these words?

And I want the above picture to be removed and to be replaced by the lower picture

For more information on power words: Kotodama

Wereldburger758 08:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. See below. 79.79.156.110 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the above is barely literate nonsense. For a start, there is no such thing as 'Jewish language'. There is a Jewish ethnicity and a Jewish religion. The language is Hebrew.
The Hebrew 'g' is exactly the same as the English 'g' in 'granary' - it is news to me that it's pronounced as 'dzj'.
I do wish that people who are neither English nor Hebrew native speakers refrained from posting such nonsense.

Stars and planetary cycles discovered in Torah[edit]

Please see here how star-maps can be extracted from the Pentateuch and how they can be arranged to the tree of life: http://theoryoftorah.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-are-there-references-to-stars-and.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.222.102 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sefirot identified by Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi ?[edit]

Is it really true that the sefirot were identified by Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi who was born in the early 20th century? Surely the sefirot have been in use for centuries prior to the founder of the Kabbalah Center. Might this be a bit of subtle propaganda by the acolytes of this Center? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.150.208 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sephirot in urban design[edit]

The part of Washington D.C. that the White House is situated in utilises the sephirot as a guide for street/park/monument sitings.Text mdnp (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is an interesting point about the White House area of Washington D.C. but non that interesting to the subject of Sephirah.Text mdnp (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move 2010: Move to Sephirot[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Sephirot. Only objection seems to be based on confusion. Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sephirot (Kabbalah) → Sephirot — No reason for parens; this is the only article with this spelling on Wikipedia. —me_and 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reffences could be mentioned[edit]

An Anime show I watched used the Sehirot and the aspect of God as an archetype I thought it should be a bit notable as it was the final villain of the series monsters http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Temporal_Machine_God perhaps a references to uses of Sehirot could be mentioned? Please consider anyway, I thought it was a nice attribute to it. Scorchgider (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of Neo-Platonism / Plotinus / Emanationism?[edit]

Surely the idea of Sephirot was influenced by Plotinus' (or other Neo-Platonists') concept of emanations. Shouldn't this be discussed in the article? 24.104.74.234 (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Brian[reply]

Step 1 in that becoming the case isn't throwing around the word "surely", it's providing sources. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! But this is a "Talk" page, not an article. And I was asking a question! I can try to add something (yes, with sources) to the article, but I'm no expert on Neoplatonism. I suppose this is the problem with Wikipedia (and why you can end up with an article on Sephirot with no mention of Plotinus or the like). 24.104.74.234 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Brian[reply]

Why source of diagram not covered?[edit]

There are several versions of the Tree-of-Life diagram but where and when did it originate? What is its source? That seems like a fairly basic thing for the article to mention.

I think article should be moved back to Tree of Life (Kabbala) as this is would be the obvious search term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldwes (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sephiroth"[edit]

The usage of Sephiroth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Sephiroth_(Final_Fantasy)#Requested_Move_2013 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2013 - do not comment here!![edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no action. Request conflicted with move request at Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). Any discussion about moving this to Sephiroth should be in a new move request. -- tariqabjotu 06:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– These are the 2nd and 3rd related move possibilities to the Talk:Sephiroth_(Final_Fantasy)#Requested_Move_2013. 1. Rationale for Sephirot to -th ending is the -th ending is approx 4x more common in Google Books and normal transliteration in English. 2. Rationale for Sephiroth to (disambiguation) is that Sephiroth is the original and clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of printed sources (outnumbering the video game character by 71,000 to 835 hits) and also educational significance. Please discuss the moves at Talk:Sephiroth_(Final_Fantasy)#Requested_Move_2013, not here. Note that the moves are not mutually dependent or mutually exclusive. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this is the encyclopedic topic of "Sephiroth" and educationally relevant, and historic topic. Per the Avatar decision. This is also the more common spelling of "Sephiroth" rather than "Sephirot" so should use the "h". The videogame character is WP:RECENTISM. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The notable video game character is not the primary meaning of this term; this concept is. And yes, it's most often spelled "sephiroth" in English. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(stricken through by me, User:Red Slash)

From In ictu oculi's post above: "Please discuss the moves at Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)#Requested Move 2013, not here". Splitting the discussion between two places will just confuse everyone. —me_and 16:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What?[edit]

Could someone please put the work into making this article a little more accessible? The language is very convuluted which contravenes what makes up a really good encycolpedia. 195.171.18.226 (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infinite[edit]

Change all references of ´the infinite´ to

´the infinite´/´fractal chaos´.

(derivatives of sensory impressions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.204.150 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sephirot → Sefirot – I have checked all the references cited and all refer to sefirot and not sephirot. I have updated the article to reflect this but the page is move protected from a prior move dispute. If the ph spelling is retained, it should be used consistently throughout. Using f seems to be much easier on the eye. 238-Gdn (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support In my experience, Sefirot is more used. On the other hand, Google seems to disagree with that, although the margin is not large. It may be because of the type of literature I read mostly. More likely it is because of the unrelated influence from Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). Debresser (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarification and a Few More Details[edit]

This article can be hard to understand for those who are completely new to the subject. It can be difficult for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject to parse through and accurately understand the material with one or two read throughs. As such, I plan to simplify the language where appropriate and possible. Simply being easier to read would a make the page more accessible to newcomers. Of course, not everything can be simplified, and I imagine the majority of the page will remain as it is, but ensuring a smoother experience in learning about the Sefirot will make gaining a basic understanding of them easier. For example 'Ein Sof' is mentioned several times throughout the article, with a translation in parentheses, except this translation changes almost every time Ein Sof is mentioned. A small section, or even a few lines dedicated to clarifying Ein Sof and it's relationship to the Sefirot would help.

Additionally, a few more details on the Sefirot can be added. In Dan Cohn-Sherbok's Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism: An Introductory Anthology he writes of how six of the Sefirot correspond to the six dimensions of space: North, south, east, west, height and depth.[1] This provides a little more detail on how the Sefirot interact with the world.

In the article, the tradition of seeing the Sefirot organized as a tree is mentioned. However, this is not the only way of seeing it. The Sefirot can also be depicted as a human being, with Keter as the head and the rest of the Sefirot emerging from it..[2] Due to Keter's literal translation being 'Crown,' and how it is supposed to represent the things that are beyond the comprehension of man, the imagery of a crown atop a head may help a newcomer understand it better than they would from the imagery of a tree.

If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Ori102 (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism: An Introductory Anthology. One World Oxford. p. 5.
  2. ^ Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism: An Introductory Anthology. One World Oxford. p. 10.

"Sephiroth" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sephiroth and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#Sephiroth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an redirect page[edit]

Ten Sefirot and ten Sefiros should redirect here. These concepts are extremely familiar by number --Rashba (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colors?[edit]

Are there colors associated with this? 174.250.211.54 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sephiroth[edit]

Page watchers may want to participate in the discussion. older ≠ wiser 18:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sefirot&oldid=1219597920"