SirPalomides

This combines Hebrew lettrism with the Platonic understanding of a World of Forms imprinting on the lower worlds, and the theurgic gradation (most explicitly laid out in Proclus) from lower to higher intelligibles, reaching a point where names are no longer effective and prayer becomes silence : However, while I have seen some forays by the Greek philosophers into lettrism, nothing approaches the intensive elaborate systems one finds in Kabbalah and Sufism, so I think this lettrism is a unique Semitic contribution.

Yes the Parmenides is crucial. I think people are hearing “Greek influence on Abrahamic faiths” and they think this means something compromising monotheism- it’s actually the opposite. The intense theology of God’s utter uniqueness, transcendence, and ineffability, to the point that even saying “God exists” is considered misleading- this comes from Platonists and their reading of the Parmenides on the One.

Also “copying” is a mischaracterization. It implies taking something from the outside, as if someone is being sneaky or cheating somehow. Not at all. Jews were integrated into Hellenistic culture for a long time and like the Christian fathers they were employing the Greek learning- together with distinct Jewish traditions- as their own.

There is no Hellenic influence in Kabbalah—->Okay there are similarities but they are purely coincidental—> Okay these ideas arose in a time and place where Jewish intellectuals were reading tons of Greek philosophy but it’s still a coincidence—-> Okay, Kabbalist texts are borrowing Platonist language but those are written by heretics and the real stuff was never written down The only thing missing from this chain of denial is Philo of Alexandria’s “Actually Plato learned everything from Moses”. As for the idea that Gershom Scholem was insufficiently grounded in Judaism to understand Kabbalah… that’s funny.

Exactly! Like esoteric hermeneutics, “we have a secret oral teaching, you wouldn’t have heard of it” is non-falsifiable and therefore an excellent way to account for ruptures in a tradition. Not only did rabbis read it anthropomorphically but went even further and said it was the tefillin knot on the back of his head, etc

Funny that you say “literally” since, taken literally, the Merkavah-Hechalot texts are blasphemous from a Kabbalistic perspective. For the Kabbalists, as good neoplatonists, anthropomorphic presentations of God must be thoroughly reinterpreted, allegorized, analogized, etc much like the episode where God shows Moses his back. And this brings us back to the esoteric hermeneutic developed by Greek philosophers.

Then the Kabbalists adopted heretical terminology to describe the Ein Sof and the manner of its emanation. Merkavah-Hekhalot texts are very cool… but not Kabbalah.

Of course they are, it’s purely coincidental that someone only noticed these concepts in the Torah and Tanach in medieval France and Spain while smokin’ Proclus.

So digging into the “cause of causes” one might think it sounds Aristotelian, somehow related to Aristotle’s final cause. Well, sort of. This phrase appears in the Book of Causes which first appeared in Arabic and was attributed to Aristotle… but it’s mainly a translation/ adaptation of Proclus. This book of course was very popular and influential among Muslim and Jewish intellectuals, and, in its Latin translation, among Catholics. Anyway here is the relevant passage: However, let us reiterate and say that the First Being is quiescent and is the cause of causes; and, if it gives being to all things, then it gives [being] to them after the mode of creation. However, the First Life gives life to those that are under it not after the mode of creation, but rather after the mode of a form. And similarly, Intelligence gives knowledge and the other things to those that are under it only after the mode of a form.

One of the Neoplatonists’ favorite tools (pioneered by Stoics) is the esoteric reading of older myths to find their philosophical/ theological principles hidden there. This had the dual benefit of projecting one’s point of view into distant antiquity, and rescuing traditional myths from surface readings that seemed impious by the current understanding. Maybe the most famous such exercise was Porphyry’s Odyssey commentary On the Cave of the Nymphs. Christian and Jewish neoplatonists applied this method with gusto to their own scriptures. The literature of Kabbalah is full of such wonderful and creative readings which find Neoplatonism in the Torah just like Porphyry found it in Homer.

Also worth investigating the provenance and history of the term "Cause of Causes."

More Neoplatonism from the Zohar:

Some snippets of negative theology, and its relationship to divine names/ attributes, through the ages From Plotinus' Enneads: From Proclus' Elements of Theology (this book was translated into Arabic as The Book of Causes and attributed to Aristotle, since Aristotle was regarded as the only "orthodox" philosopher in the Islamicate world; in that way Proclus influenced Islamic and Jewish philosophy; this book in turn was translated to Latin and influenced the scholastics): From the Pseudo-Dionysian The Divine Names: From the Zohar: Azriel of Gerona, cited here:

So I've heard from Pentecostals, Grateful Dead fans, and ice divers. I'm glad they're happy!

Taoist Texts says he explains cosmological principles based on texts. Pretty modest. He's not saying you can summon rain clouds or fly after hearing this explanation. I'm in no real position to judge but from the little I've seen of his contributions on this forum, he does seem to know what he's talking about. As for "trolling," well, someone's got to keep this place from being a wizard echo chamber.

I don’t know what you actually expect Taoist Texts to do here. Meet some unverifiable claims with questions to get unverifiable answers? He’s right, there’s a lot of wizards running around and not enough time in the world to listen to them explain themselves. If we want to talk about results, though, what’s it say about a teaching when the disciple responds to some gentle ribbing with belligerence?

An interesting article discussing a parallel between Zohar and Iamblichus on theurgy: http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri/article/download/457/455

From the Encyclopedia Judaica: EMANATION, a theory describing the origin of the material universe from a transcendent first principle. According to this theory, the universe, which is multiple, is generated from the One, which is unitary, through the medium of a hierarchy of immaterial substances. The ultimate source is undiminished, while the beings which are emanated are progressively less perfect as they are further removed from the first principle. The process is conceived as being atemporal. In neoplatonic emanationism the ultimate product, the material universe, is not regarded as evil, as in gnostic systems of emanation. A variety of models are used to describe emanation. For example, it is compared to the efflux of light from a luminous body, or to water flowing from a spring. The emanationist theory was given its classical formulation by Plotinus in the Enneads, in which the typical fourfold scheme of the One, Intellect, Soul, and Nature is found. Emanationism tends to be combined with an eschatology (or soteriology) that envisions the soul's return to its ultimate source of being by epostrophē or "reversion" (see A. Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (1969), 41ff.). The theory of emanation was developed further by Plotinus' successors, particularly Proclus, who systematized the scheme of monēproodos-epistrophē (immanence, procession, reversion) to account for the process of emanation. In Jewish Philosophy The Hebrew terms used for emanation are aẓilut or aẓilah (cf. Num. 11:17), hishtalshelut, meshekh, shefa; the verbs shalaḥ and sadar (in the pu'al) are also used (see J. Klatzkin, Thesaurus Philosophicus (1930), 96; 4 (1933), 112). The theory of emanation was known to medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophers from several sources. Plotinus was known from the Theology of Aristotle (in both a vulgate and long recension), a paraphrase of texts from the Enneads, as well as from Plotinian material ascribed to "al-Sheikh al-Yūnānī" ("The Greek Sage," probably Porphyry, editor of the Enneads), and a work titled al- ʿ Ilm al-Ilāhī ("The Divine Science"), falsely ascribed to al-*Fārābī (translations of this material are in Plotinus, Opera, ed. by H. Schwyzer (1959), vol. 2). Proclus was known from the Liber de causis (Kitāb al-Idāh fi al-Khayr al-Maḥḍ) ascribed to Aristotle but actually based on Proclus' Elements of Theology (ed. and tr. by E.R. Dodds, 1963). One must also take into account neoplatonic texts such as the pseudo-Aristotelian source utilized by Isaac *Israeli and Abraham *Ibn Ḥasdai (see S.M. Stern, in Oriens, 13–14 (1960–61), 58ff.) and the pseudo-Empedoclean Book of Five Substances (ed. by D. Kaufmann, Studien ueber Salomo Ibn Gabirol (1899), 17ff.). Jewish philosophers also relied on the appropriation and development of emanationism by Arabic philosophers such as al-*Kindī, al-Fārābī, *Avicenna, and the Sincere *Brethren (Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ). In medieval Arabic and Jewish neo-Aristotelianism, the neoplatonic theory of emanation was applied to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology which posited a series of nine concentric spheres encompassing the earth, each endowed with an intelligence. Thus, Aristotle's active intellect (De Anima, 3) was identified either with Plotinus' universal intellect in the neoplatonic hierarchy, or with the intelligence of the lowest sphere (of the moon) in the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology. Emanation is a necessary (natural) and eternal process, and is thus thought to imply the absence of will and design on the part of the ultimate source. Thus, the theory of emanation is in conflict with the biblical concept of temporal creation by divine volition. Also, emanationism sees the divine source as somehow omnipresently immanent in the world, and it therefore tends toward pantheistic expressions. In their discussions of cosmology, Jewish philosophers sometimes tried to harmonize emanation with biblical concepts of *creation and *providence. Isaac Israeli, for example, postulates an initial act of creation by "the will and power" of God which results in the first two substances, which are in his system prime matter and form (or wisdom), while the subsequent entities are generated by a process of emanation. These are the typical hierarchy of intellect, soul, and nature of Plotinus, but the universal soul, like the individual soul, is tripartite (rational, animal, vegetable; as in Ibn *Gabirol), and nature is identified with the first or outer sphere. Each emanated being is derived from "the shadow" of its anterior cause. Ibn Gabirol injected an element of voluntarism into an emanationist system with his notion of "will," which mediates between the first essence and primary matter and form, which together constitute the hypostasis of intellect. Will thus appears not as a function of the creator (cf. Israeli), but as a distinct hypostasis. Gabirol often appeals to the metaphors of a spring of water, light from the sun, the reflection in a mirror, and human speech to explain emanation. There is a pronounced tendency toward pantheism (see Mekor Ḥayyim 5:39, 3:16). Pseudo-*Baḥyaʿs Kitāb Maʿanī al-Nafs ("On the Essence of the Soul") combines creation and emanation. The entire chain of being hinges on God's will and wisdom. Intellect is called Shekhinah and soul is called Kevod Elohei Yisrael (see Guttmann, Philosophies, 110). *Abraham bar Ḥiyya posits five worlds above the celestial spheres, which he correlates with the five days of creation, giving each a theological interpretation. The lower three (the worlds of knowledge, soul, and creation) seem to correspond to the neoplatonic hypostases. Above them are the world of light (ha-olam ha-nurani) and the world of dominion (olam ha-ravrevanut), probably derived from an Arabic neoplatonic work (Megillat ha-Megalleh, ed. by A. Posnanski (1924), 21ff.; see also, G. Scholem, in MGWJ, 75 (1931), 172ff.; and Guttmann, Philosophies, 112ff.). Like Ibn Gabirol, Abraham bar Ḥiyya uses expressions which are tantamount to pantheism. God is essentially identical with the universe insofar as He gives it the power of being. The emanation theory of Arabic and Jewish Aristotelians, an intricate system explaining the derivation of the spheres and their intelligences, was rejected by *Judah Halevi as an unproven claim (Kuzari, 4:25). Abraham *Ibn Daud also rejected the emanationist explanation of the derivation of the spheres and their intelligences, but without denying the order itself (Emunah Ramah, ed. by S. Weil (1852), 67). The position of *Maimonides is complex. He was keenly aware of the opposition between eternal necessary emanation of the world from God and the free act of creation. Nevertheless he wrote: "It has been said that the world derives from the overflow (fayḍ) of God and that He has caused to overflow to it everything in it that is produced in time." In the same context he compares the derivation of the world from God to a spring of water which, he says, is "the most fitting simile for the action of one who is separate from matter" (Guide of the Perplexed, 2:12). Divine emanation also accounts for cognition and prophecy (ibid., 2:37). The governance of the lower world is perfected by means of forces emanating from the spheres (ibid., 2:5). Still, this emanation is said to be unlike that of heat from fire and light from the sun in that it constantly assures duration and order for the existents that emanate from God by "wisely contrived governance" (ibid., 1:59). Maimonides' insistence on creation in time and insertion of intention and wisdom into a scheme of emanation appear to contradict the presuppositions of the latter. *Levi b. Gershom found several difficulties with the theory of emanation which postulates an eternal procession from God (Milẓamot Adonai, 6:1, 7; see also Guttmann, Philosophies, 211ff.). He maintained, for example, that it was impossible for existence to flow constantly from God to the heavenly bodies (as opposed to their being brought into being at once), for the heavens would thus exist only potentially. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Guttman, Philosophies, index; D. Neumark, Geschichte der juedischen Philosophie des Mittelalters 1 (1907), 503ff.; Scholem, Mysticism, S.V. emanation; idem, in: Tarbiz, 2 (1931/32), 415–42; 3 (1932/33), 33–66; J. Ben-Shlomo, Torat ha-Elohut shel R. Moshe Cordovero (1965), 170–82. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalah Literature (1978), 11–17, 397–476; E. Gottlieb and M. Idel, Enchanted Chains (2005); M. Idel, "Between the View of Sefirot as Essence and Instruments in the Renaissance Period," in: Italia, 3 (1982), 89–111 (Heb.).

I know what to look for because I'm familiar with much later eisegesis Yes, in some versions it is expanded to five... which is in keeping with Aristotle. I'm asking you to find reincarnation in the Tanakh. Where is it? Negative theology is not about the k'lipot. Good god man.

Ravad's proof of God's existence is that all motions must originate from a Prime Mover that is unmoved. It's the argument from Aristotle's Metaphysics which is a basic philosophical authority for Ravad and basically all the intellectuals around him, Arab and Jewish. That's in the second part of his book ha-Emunah ha-Ramah which is Aristotelian through and through. It's chock full of very Aristotelian concerns like the distinction between substance and accident, the lunar and sublunar realms, etc. He assumes the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic model of the cosmos as a series of nested spheres with earth at the center and the divine realm as the outermost sphere or outside the spheres. Each sphere is presided over by incorporeal intelligences emanating triads. Quick, find this cosmology in the Tanakh!

There is no emanation in Genesis 1, unless, of course, you rely on much later interpretations. Do you understand what is meant by emanation? Nefesh, ruach, neshama. I would love to see an exposition of how Bezalel demonstrations transmigration of souls that doesn't rely on much later commentaries. So you don't know what "negation" means in the context of theology.

Ravad, whom you call a famous kabbalist, was as much animated by Greek philosophy as Maimonides. His proof of God as first cause/ prime mover is straight out of Aristotle (via Islamic commentators). As for Maimonides, his reception is a lot more varied, including among Kabbalists, than what you're letting on. Since you're so insistent that Kabbalah comes straight out of Tanakh with no Greek influence whatsoever, find the following kabbalistic doctrines in the pages of the Tanakh: Creation by emanation (not ex nihilo); Tripartite soul; Transmigration of souls; The attributes of God as negations

And the counterpoint... Charles Fourier: If our destiny extended no further than the wretchedness of Civilisation, God would have given us listless, apathetic passions of the sort recommended by philosophers, passions appropriate to the miserable existence of the last five thousand years. But their vitality, which we complain about, is the guarantee of our future happiness.

Well, Al-Ghazali is a Western philosopher and is echoing Stoics here

An interview with Dr. Sarah Pessin on the phenomenon of Jewish neoplatonism in general: https://historyofphilosophy.net/transcript/jewish-neoplatonism-pessin One of Moshe Idel's many essays on the influence of neoplatonism in Kabbalah, with plenty of examples and citations: http://jewishstudies.ceu.edu/sites/jewishstudies.ceu.edu/files/attachment/basicpage/71/08idel.pdf Those interested can consult other work of Pessin, Idel, Gershom Scholem, and other eminent scholars. Note that there is debate as to the extent and nature of the neoplatonic current in Judaism, versus other currents such as gnosticism, but actually denying that it's there at all? No. The Zohar is a medieval book and a pretty bad example if you want to disprove the influence of neoplatonism in Kabbalah- the neoplatonic elements in the Zohar have long been recognized (e.g. emanationist cosmology, tripartite soul, etc.), including by rabbis who wrote against it, such as Elia Delmedigo, who recognized that it was not as ancient as it claimed and that it contained Greek philosophical content.