Daniel

It's more likely you have mistaken which terminology is actually being used. As I stated before, you don't seem to know what kabalah is. It is literally making a mercavah. That's what it is.

From the jewish perspective, this is heresy. The one and only creator, is the one and only creator. None other are "giving". That's an assumption. Have you read hagigah in the talmud? Maasei b'reishis and maasei mercavah predate the medieval period. It's not written until later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism#Early_Jewish_merkabah_mysticism

... but the concepts of kabalah are coming from the torah and tanach. If the concepts originate in the torah, which predates neoplatonism by at least hundreds of years, and none of it is pagan, then, what is your point? If the story is going to be adapted to this thread, then, the native turned to the rabbi and says: "I saw you copying from me when you were facing east." The Rabbi says, "I always face east, my mother faced east, my father faced east, we've been facing east for generations." The native replies, "Nope you're practicing my religion." And the Rabbi says, "Um, OK, do have shatnez? shabbos? arba minim?" The native says: "whatever those are, you're copying." The Rabbi says: "You're rude and ignorant" and walks away.

Um... from Deuteronomy? yup. ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכם כי לא ראיתם כל־תמונה ביום דבר יהוה אליכם בחרב מתוך האש׃ Take therefore good heed to yourselves; for you saw no manner of form on the day when the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire; and how is this pagan, again?

The Torah references are there in the text you've posted... Not sure what you're expecting to accomplish here. Lol. Try Genesis 1:1. בראשית ברא ברא שית ברא

Here is the actual link to the Zohar citation above. The link that was provided is to the Zohar.com main page. https://www.zohar.com/zohar/Pinchas/chapters/40 The actual quote comes from Raaya Mehemna. It is a somewhat controversial author which is added, ammended to the Zohar. The Zohar of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai comes first, then the Raaya Mehemna ammends to it. Since no one knows who this Raya Mehemna is ( it means "faithful shepard" ) Most scholars give it a very late dating. It is omitted from the Stanford University ( Pritzker Edition ) because its content is often so divergent from the original material it is considered a forgery. I don't have a problem with it, but, @SirPalomides has not seemed to be very careful with knowing what is being posted, its actual dating, nor its actual meaning. Providing an actual link to the actual source is important for knowing actually what is being quoted.

Nothing pagan here... Not quite sure what you're imagining. Although it is useful to note that all the words in caps are added. They are the commentary of the Baal HaSulam.

In the linked article, the author is making a very simple argument. If the Zohar asserts that its concepts are not original, and, there is a good match for its concepts elsewhere then, it is reasonable to conclude that the concepts originated from the source of the matching concept. Simple. Then the author attempts to show this is precisely what happened. The problem, as usual, is the author either did not read the Zohar nor understand it. Those who are reliant on academics for this subject matter will scoff: "But they're a scholar, certainly they know how to read!" All I can in response is: "This happens all the time." Because of this, a good rule that is employed by many religious people is, always-always double check the original source. When that is done in this case, yet again, it is an example where there is a claim: "The Zohar says: X", but, when the Zohar is acctually read it does not say "X". Here is the original claim: "the Zohar does not pretend to be original. It refers explicitly to its sources, saying..." If this is false, then, the entire argument fails. It's not the only failure of the article, but, this is the primary focus since your intention is to show that Zohar was influenced by "greek wisdom" in spite of the strict jewish prohibition against it. Following the claim, the author attempts to bring a Zohar quote to confirm the asssertion. Here's the problem. They didn't give enough of the story. Not even close. There's a method for reading the Zohar. It's not something that can be cherry picked. It's something that is studied. First, one needs to know what was inspiring the section which is in focus. Then one needs to zoom out and pickup on the flow, the "shefa", of the story. Then one needs to put themself in the story, and listen what it is teaching. But, let's skip all of that and simply confirm whether or not the author's assertion is true. Does the Zohar, in fact, in this section, assert that the teachings are coming from an outside source? Here's the passage from the linked article: ( footnote #2 is incorrect, ignore it, the quote spans two pages, hence, the page break ) Here's the story begin referred to: LINK אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָא יוֹמָא חַד אִעַרְעָנָא בְּחַד מָתָא מֵאִנּוּן דְּהֲווּ מִן בְּנֵי קֶדֶם, וְאָמְרוּ לִי מֵהַהִיא חָכְמְתָא דְּהֲווּ יָדְעִין מִיּוֹמֵי קַדְמָאֵי וְהֲווּ אַשְׁכְּחָן סִפְרִין דְּחָכְמְתָא דִּלְהוֹן, וּקְרִיבוּ לִי חַד סִפְרָא. וְהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ, דְּהָא כְּגַוְונָא דִּרְעוּתָא דְּבַּר נָשׁ אִיכַוֵּון בֵּיהּ בְּהַאי עָלְמָא, הָכִי אַמְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהּ רוּחַ מִלְּעֵילָא כְּגַוְונָא דְּהַהוּא רְעוּתָא דְּאִתְדָּבַּק בֵּיהּ, אִי רְעוּתֵיהּ אִיכַוִּין בְּמִלָּה עִלָּאָה קַדִּישָׁא אִיהוּ אַמְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהּ לְהַהִיא מִלָה מִלְּעֵילָא לְתַתָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ. וְאִי רְעוּתֵיהּ לְאִתְדַּבְּקָא בְּסִטְרָא אָחֳרָא וְאִיכַוֵּין בֵּיהּ, אִיהוּ אַמְשִׁיךְ לְהַהִיא מִלָּה מִלְּעֵילָא לְתַתָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ. וְהֲווּ אָמְרִי דְּעִקָּרָא דְּמִלְּתָא תַּלְיָיא בְּמִלִּין וּבְעוֹבָדָא וּבִרְעוּתָא לְאִתְדַּבְּקָא, וּבְדָא אִתְמְשַׁךְ מִלְּעֵילָא לְתַתָּא הַהוּא סִטְרָא דְּאִתְדָּבַּק בָּהּ. OK... great! What comes next? Why did the author stop reading? Here's their quote: "They had found their books of wisdom, and they brought me one, in which was written: “As one’s aspiration is directed in this world, so he draws upon himself a spirit from above, corresponding to the aspiration to which he cleaves. If his aspiration focuses on a supernal holy entity, he draws that entity from above to himself below. If he aspires to cleave to the other side,5 focusing there, then he draws that from above to himself below.“ Here's the continuation of the story the very next line is: וְאַשְׁכַּחְנָא בֵּיהּ, כָּל אִינוּן עוֹבָדִין וּפוּלְחָנִין דְּכֹכְבַיָא וּמַזָּלֵי, וּמִלִּין דְּאִצְטְרִיכוּ לוֹן, וְהָאֵיךְ רְעוּתָא לְאִתְכַּוְּונָא בְּהוֹ, בְּגִין לְאַמְשָׁכָא לוֹן לְגַבַּיְיהוּ. "... and I found in it [ the book that the they brought ] kolh eenoon ohvadin, oofool'chanin dee'chochvayah, oomazalei ( "all manner of serving and worshipping in the stars and their corresponding angels. ) " That doesn't sound very jewish does it? The story continues a bit, the kedim ( the children of the east ) further explain their position and what is in their book(s). Then Rabbi Abba expliicity states: This is NOT infuencing our teachings. It's the opposite of what the author has claimed. אֲמִינָא לוֹן בָּנַי קְרִיבָא דָא לְמִלִּין דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא. אֲבָל אִית לְכוּ אִתְרַחֲקָא מֵאִנּוּן סִפְרִין בְּגִין דְּלָא יִסְטֵי לִבַּיְיכוּ לְאִלֵּין פּוּלְחָנִין וּלְכָל אִנּוּן סִטְרִין דְּקָאֲמַר הָכָא דִּילְמָא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם תִּסְטוּן מִבָּתַר פּוּלְחָנָא דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא. "He says to the children of the east: "Keerivah dah l'milin d'oraisa." It's close to the words of our teachings.... but you should stay away from these books. "Haas v'shalom tee's'toon mbatar pool'chanah d'Koodshah B'rich-Hoo" Heaven forbid you will be accused/attacked by the satan tee's'toon (s'toon, samech-tet-nun, a conjugation of the word for satan) "from-behind-worshipping-the-blessed-holy-one". Here's the important part which disproves the thesis: דְּהָא כָּל סְפָרִים אִלֵּין אַטְעַיָּין לוֹן לִבְנֵי נָשָׁא, בְּגִין דִּבְנֵי קֶדֶם חַכִּימִין הֲווּ, וִירוּתָא דְּחָכְמְתָא דָא יָרְתוּ מֵאַבְרָהָם דְּיָהַב לִבְנֵי פִּלַּגְּשִׁים, דִּכְתִיב, (בראשית כ״ה:ו׳) "All of these books, they are deceiving ( literally causing errors ) to the children of men ( humanity ). [They are decieving ] because the children of the east ( the kedim ) are wise, and it is an offshoot of the wisdom in the sprouting from abraham which was given to the the children of the concubines, as it is written Genesis 25:6... So. There you have it. The Zohar does NOT in any way claim that these books from the east are its source material. The source is the torah, which was being taught by abraham according to the story. The author admits this, see below: So, what is the the source the Zohar is claiming for itself? Its' the teachings of Abraham as written in the Torah. The author is confused, obviously, because what preceeds this little story about the book of "wisdom" of the east, and what follows it is nothing but quotations from the Torah. In order to understand what iss actually being taught by the Zohar, one needs to go back to the beginning of the story and read is "the opening". Then work through the reasons why this is significantly different than what is being presented in the "wisdom from the east". Then find that the entire exposition following matches this. Then realize tthis is the same theme that is being presented all through the whole Zohar which is a rising from falling in a brilliant mysterious intentional divine plan. That's not neoplantonism.

If you haven't read the zohar, you'd never know if this is accurate or not.

And ... What is your point? I don't see any thing or any one "kabalistic" being cited. The Torah isn't being cited. There's a couple of critics listed. Judah HaLevi is a good example because he was familiar with the Greek and Islamic philosophy of that era. It really doesn't matter how many opinions you post. If you haven't read the material you can't comment about what is or what isn't included.

If you don't know hebrew, you won't be able to find it in the original text. If you don't know hebrew, you're not reading the original text. At a certain point unless a person is off-the-chart ignorant and arrogant, they'll need to accept that they cannot make any conclusions about what is NOT in the original text if they cannot read it. All 5 are in the Torah. If you'd like to discuss the 5 aspects of the soul and compare it to what's written by aristotle, bring aristotle. Your original question was about a tripartriate soul, which is not in kabalah. You're going to find 2 parts or 5 parts, not 3. Betzalel. "Negative theology" is not kabalah.

No, no. You'd need to bring Ravad's actual words. It's too easy for you to just quote Aristotle and then say that Ravad said the same thing in the same way. Since you've greatly exaggerated your own sources, you'll need to bring a quote if you want to be believed. Then, if there is sufficient similarity you'd need to rule out that the two individuals did not come up with the same idea independently. Both Newton and Leibniz are creditted for the creation of calculus. They were in different countries. And this ignores the big picture, which is, God as the un-moved-mover, acausal-cause, is not an idea which is brought into judaism. Hoenstly I think you're mistaking Maimonides for Ravad. Maimonides has a proof for the unmoved mover which is identical to aristotle in the Moreh Nevuchim ( guide for the perplexed ).

Sure there is. You don't know what to look for. Can you read hebrew? Your assumptions about the age of these ideas are meaningless. ... hayah ,yechida. There's 5. Your reaction to this simple fact will be telling. Um. Exposition is commentary. So no matter what I bring, you'll just flip-flop and call it a later exposition. That's #1. #2 You believe with absolute certainty that a "reverberation" of a theme or a "hint" proves there is platonic influence. Eventhough both "scholars" admit that their conclusions deviate from what's written. At least what I would bring is congruent with what's writen. It's either a huge double standard or you didn't read your own sources. Of course I do. If you want to discuss it bring a source.

Two can come to the same conclusion without being animated by one or the other. Your judgment ( or recollection ) is lacking credibility. Bring Ravad's proof and Aristotle's proof if you want to discuss it.

Genesis 1 It's not tripartite in kabalah. The best example is betzalel The attributes of god are not negations in kabalah. The k'lipot are negations.

You didn't read this one either did you? A reverberation. Possible source.. not certain influence. There it is... ~eye-rolls~ Since the story doesn't ACTUALLY match they ASSUME it was changed. That's all that should be needed here to dismiss this. If the story needs to be changed in order to make the point, then it's w-e-a-k.

Moshe Idel... who studies Abulafia... who is a devotee to Maimonides... who was condemned and cursed by kabalists...

Did you read it? As is shown below, there is nothing clear about any direction of infuence into Judaism. The scholar actually avoids the prime example of Maimonides who was cursed by the mystical community after attempting to smuggle greek wisdom into judaism. Hints that look like... <--- not even close to certainty It's not so clear. <--- not even close to certainty There's some shared ideas? Between Judaism and Isalm? Of course! The direction of influence is Judaism ----> Islam. Anyone who has studied the Quran can attest to this. Right! There is a methodology which is found in the written at that time and place, around 1000CE. There was a philosophical bebate happening between Jewish, Islamic, and Greek philosophers. In order to debate, they adopt each other's language and methods inorder to show where they're right and where they're wrong. There was an attempt to smuggle greek wisdom into Judaism. I'll get too that. Important Note: The scholar is admitting that their conclusion deviates from what the authors actually have written. OK. They don't know why, probably because they haven't studied Tanach and Talmud. None the less, this is an argument from ignorance. "What else could it be?" is far from certain. Uh-huh. Very important but they don't tell you the whole story. Maimonides' books werre burned. The mystical community condemned his work. Some thought he was possessed. Some thought his work was forged. The scholar doesn't tell you that. The Ravad, a famous kabalist cursed Maimonides. It doesn't get much harsher than that. When it crosses the line from methodology to adopting ( and in Maimonides case perscribing ) other religious concepts, that is NOT Judaism.

Similarities are not influence. And if you haven't read it, then, this is just parroting someone else's ideas without understanding them. This is typical. It doesn't appear to me that you are capable of having an actual discussion of the merits ( or lack there of ) of these opinions.

It seems as if the notion is "they didn't have it in writing." Plato wrote about creating an illusion of ancient divine authority over the law. Having the blessing on an amulet shows that there was a divine authority in writting PRIOR to the hellenist era, prior to being iinfluenced by the greeks. The dating is off. Gmirkin doesn't know about the archeology, probably. OK. It looks like I'm not the only one who is noticing some major problems in this idea: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_Torah#Criticism_of_Hellenistic_origin_theories It doesn't look like he has any real credentials. It doesn't matter too much to me. Anyone can come up with good ideas. But he's not a "scholar" so the appeal to authority doesn't work here at all. http://russellgmirkin.com/biography-and-publications

Compilation is not conception. "with much evidence ... " People say they have ample evidence for these sorts of claims and then on examination it turns out to be minimal and often misuderstood. I've heard all this stuff before. If you have something to discuss, please bring it so we can discuss it. If you're claiming a direction of influence, then, you'd need to show it. Otherwise it's just a popular idea. Do you know what kabalah is? Do you actually know what you're talking about here? I'm serious. Have you read the Zohar, can you read aramaic? Plato didn't come anywhere near these subjects. Please don't mispresent what I wrote. There are 2 issues. They are seperate. If you smoosh them together, that is misrepreseting me. Issue 1: Judaism is defined by the Torah. That's it. Denying the Torah is denying Judaism. Issue 2: Jewish people often do things which are against the law. When they are breaking the law, they are not practicing Judaism. This does not change the law. If the speed-limit is 55. Driving 75 does not change the law. It really is that simple. It doesn't matter if the one who wrote the law is driving 100. They are still breaking the law. The reason that I'm saying it didn't happen is because: 1) there is no evidence to support it 2) it makes no sense for the ones who are preaching not to do it, to do it anyway. That encourages people to flock to the other religions. 3) The entire tanach would need to have been rewritten in order to support this idea that judaism is syncretic and was influenced by the greeks and egyptians Start with #1, bring some actual evidence of influence. No, "I heard it on youtube", or, "I read it in a book" doesn't work. People tell stories about Judaism all the time. On examination they turn out to be false. If you can't bring a real example, it's just a rumor. Enuma Elish has been debunked. The Epic Gilgamesh has already been debunked. You'd need to bring the actual stories and their actual dates so that we can discuss them. Name dropping them doesn't work. I've researched it before. Yes the epistles came first, but the ideas you're talking about seem to be missing from the stories of Jesus. If they were included then there would be no debates about them.

The point is, criticising the word choice "what you call mind" is inappropriate. I didn't choose that word. What relevance does it have? The words you've chosen are not defined there? It's completely unrelated. What is preventing it from being pulled forth? And, may we review for a moment? Maybe take a detour? Chaitanya? = "empty/clear-light-of-knowing"? What was previously referred to as "awareness"? Is this also what should be used instead of "thought"? The quad: manas-chitta-buddhi-ahamkara? Does this quad have a name? Manas? "the reflected concsciousness"? Is this where "being-ness" is reflected? Buddhi? you wrote this is "pulling"? Was that an intentional word choice? It "pulls"? What is "driving" it? What directs the buddhi to pull the specific impression from chitta? Of all the impressions that are collected there ( hopefully "collected" is a good word for this ), what is making the selection? Ahamkara? The ego? ( public enemy #1. I'm kidding. It's everyone's favorite scapegoat. ) You wrote the memory is "appropriated". That's interesting. I would very much appreciate elaboration on this appropriation? It's claiming the memory as itself?

What sort of bad memories?

Just a note, I'm using the same word choices you are using. "Thought" and "Mind" are your word choices. Not helpful. Seems perfectly reasonable. We're discussing forgotten-memories. A memory is an impression stored in the chitta. What happens when it is forgotten?

No. But if you read the prophets you'll see that institutional power structures always-always fail. 1 Samuel: 8:1 ויהי כאשר זקן שמואל וישם את־בניו שפטים לישראל׃ And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 8:2 ויהי שם־בנו הבכור יואל ושם משנהו אביה שפטים בבאר שבע׃ And the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 8:3 ולא־הלכו בניו בדרכו ויטו אחרי הבצע ויקחו־שחד ויטו משפט׃ And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. This is a complete departure from what the other nations ( all of them ) were doing by setting up genetic dynasties. Then what happens? 8:4 ויתקבצו כל זקני ישראל ויבאו אל־שמואל הרמתה׃ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to Ramah, 8:5 ויאמרו אליו הנה אתה זקנת ובניך לא הלכו בדרכיך עתה שימה־לנו מלך לשפטנו ככל־הגוים׃ And said to him, Behold, you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 8:6 וירע הדבר בעיני שמואל כאשר אמרו תנה־לנו מלך לשפטנו ויתפלל שמואל אל־יהוה׃ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 8:7 ויאמר יהוה אל־שמואל שמע בקול העם לכל אשר־יאמרו אליך כי לא אתך מאסו כי־אתי מאסו ממלך עליהם׃ And the Lord said to Samuel, Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8:8 ככל־המעשים אשר־עשו מיום העלתי אתם ממצרים ועד־היום הזה ויעזבני ויעבדו אלהים אחרים כן המה עשים גם־לך׃ According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, how they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also to you. They wanted to setup an instituion like all the other nations. Not good... not good at all.