Search the Community

I've posted repeatedly on this forum regarding Maimonides' heresy and that he was cursed by the great kabalist, the Ravad, and rejected by the Jewish mystical community. https://www.thedaobums.com/search/?&q=ravad&author=daniel https://i.postimg.cc/qvthRgYs/Screenshot-20241026-053747.jpg

You seem to be interested in re-writing it. The thread is asking about "pagan". The thread is asking about "abrahamic". Abrahamic is defined by the Torah, not you, not me. It's impossible to discuss what is or is not Abrahamic while denying the credibility of the books which define it. This has nothing to do with me or my sect. It has to do with the desire by many to reimagine a group from the outside. The insider does have priviledged information. Why? You brought philo quotes. They appear to be heretical, although, that could be the translator making choices. They don't match adam kadmon as I understand the concept. If I were to correct it, based on what you brought, I would attribute philo's "logos" to "mochin" aka "the-god-head". Does that fit? You're the expert on philo's logos. Adam Kadmon is not creating anything. It's definitely not a delegate which is given authority for creation. It's not even an empty vessel. It's internal, "pre"-expression. "Pre" is in quotes because there is no "prior" for the eternal. It doesn't say "malchuth" in the original. That is added. The original says they are all likenesses of each other, you have added a distinction between these likenesses which does not exist in the original. It also exposes a miscomprehension. Even if the commentary is included, the supernal exist in kesser ( you would probably call it kether ), the immanent exist in malchus ( malchuth ). Malchus is a reflection of kesser. There cannot be a dichotomy. In fact: malchus of the layer beyond is the kesser of the layer following/inside of it. They are literally the same "form". There cannot be a dichotomy there. This reflection of "kesser <--> malchus <--> kesser" in atzilus and "mallchus <--> kesser <--> malchus" in assiyah is a great example of the sort of concepts which are often missing when outsiders try to learn kabalah. What you've written about forms and logoi, is completely deviating from the Zohar quote to which you are referring. Unless forms and logoi are identical. Are they? ( Technically, the nesting is much more elaborate, but, what I wrote above is the basic idea. ) You're still cropping out details. It doesn't even say "from speech to silence". It says there are lower names which vocalized and thought. Then there is a different level of name which are not. What'll really tickle the turnips, is: Kabalah teaches to go down for the purpose of going up. Is that platonic? It's not my account: https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-philosophy/ From Thales, who is often considered the first Western philosopher, to the Stoics and Skeptics, ancient Greek philosophy opened the doors to a particular way of thinking that provided the roots for the Western intellectual tradition. Here, there is often an explicit preference for the life of reason and rational thought. Under the sub-heading Plotinus: The best life depends upon becoming one’s true self via the intellect, which means to step away from the part of the soul by which we typically identify ourselves, the passionate and desiring part of the soul. If we are now accustomed to identify ourselves by our likes, dislikes, opinions, , then a true Plotinian self would not be a self at all. For Plotinus, however, this is true selfhood since it is closest to the center of all life, the One. ( Notice the extreme deviation. Kabalah teaches to connection with all, above-below, left-right, inner-outer. This is favoring intellect of the mind and discouraging the passions of the heart. ) Under the sub-heading neo-platonists: ( this is really important. The bold introduces a direction of influence. ) Plotinus set off a tradition of thought that had great influence in medieval philosophy. This tradition has been known since the 19th century as “Neoplatonism,” but Plotinus and other Neoplatonists saw themselves merely as followers and interpreters of Plato (Dillon and Gerson xiii). Plotinus’ student, Porphyry, without whom we would know little to nothing about Plotinus or his work, carried on the tradition of his master, although we do not possess a full representation of his work. With Iamblichus came a focus upon Aristotle’s work, since he took Aristotle as an informative source on Platonism. Neoplatonism also saw the rise of Christianity, and therefore saw itself to some degree in a confrontation with it (Dillon and Gerson xix). Perhaps in part because of this confrontation with Christianity, later Neoplatonists aimed to develop the religious aspects of Neoplatonic thought. Thus, the later Neoplatonists introduced theurgy, claiming that thought alone cannot unite us with gods, but that symbols and rites are needed for such a union (Hadot 170-171). The neo-platonists were, maybe, influenced BY Christians not the other way around, per the University of Tennessee. You had pointed to the theurgy as an indicator of the influence neoplatonists had ON kabalah. Yet, the University of Tennessee encyclopedia of philosophy proposes the opposite. What do you think of that? No, you haven't. You've ignored what I've brought. You've ignored your own sources. In order to make a point you need to ignore what's written and replace it with outher words in the kabalistic texts. Strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. In order to demonstrate it amply, you'd need to at least be able to address what I've written, and show an actual similarity. Your own sources admit, they are looking at hints, reverberations, and outright contradictions of what is written. Ample is not a hint. Ample is not a reverberation. Ample is a strong match which has no obvious counter-examples. You have yet to address any of the counter examples that I have brought. Now you're flip-flopping. Ya know what? I've stopped caring. Your desired and forcibly greek insertion from behind is uninvited and unwelcome. This will be my last post to you. Goodbye. Whatt ever questions I've asked, please consider them rhetorical. I will not be reading any of your replies. You have not been able to address any of the comments I have made. I've shown you the texts and what they say. Yes, Maimonides books were burned. Ravad, known by many as the father of kabalah cursed him because of what he wrote. You ignored all of that. Gershom Scholem is an outsider. Those who are in the community do look unfavorably on the ideas that he considers to be "kabalah". The fact that you do not care about what is authentic or not, doesn't matter. Your standards are weak.

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 ).

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.

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.