These ASK ABOUT topics are focused on INFORMATION about new paths, rather than on sharing our personal journey. Please keep it to one topic per new path. This is a place for SUPPORT and AGREEMENT only, not a place to tell someone their new path is wrong or why we disagree with them.
A guy I know from facebook wrote the following post in a discussion about rationalistic versus mystical (kabbalistic) Judaism - I thought it was good so here it is because hey, relevant:
I tend to suspect people who summarily dismiss "mystical" concepts (gilgulim, sheidim, k'meiyos, etc.) of being conceited, narrow-minded, and unintellectual.
As someone above already said, rationalism is mostly about minimizing leaps of faith. This plays out a lot in taamei hamitsvos: Consider this: "We do such-and-such because it teaches us discipline." Now consider this: "We do such-and-such because our actions reverberate throughout unseen worlds, strengthening the forces of light against the forces of evil, thus unifying the letters of G-d's hidden names." You can't say the second one is less rational, per se, but it is certainly based on a lot of unproveable axioms. A "rationalist" prefers his religion to be explained in terms he already understands; a mystic is happier accepting more postulates.
Personally, I absolutely accept the teachings of Zohar, Arizal, etc. However, this does not necessitate throwing my own intellect to the wind. Quite the contrary: I strive to study our mystical tradition in ways I can understand, rephrasing the esoteric metaphors in philosophical terms. This isn't my own idea -- it is the approach of Maharal, Ramchal, Nefesh Hachaim, Rav Dessler, etc.
Ta'amei ha'mitzvot is explaining the commandments - giving reasons.
The Zohar is a major work of the kabbalah.
Arizal is Rabbi Isaac Luria (Arizal means 'the holy Ari' and 'Ari' is the Lion, which is a nickname for Rabbi Isaac Luria)
Maharal etc are various important Jewish sources - commentaries and major rabbis.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
True Kabbalists (and that guy is one) believe that 'the kabbalah' was part of the oral knowledge given by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, along with the written word (the Torah). So from that POV, kabbalistic teachings are something that are a) directly from God and b) part of Judaism from the 'beginning'.
It is certain (or as certain as one can be) that there WAS an 'oral tradition' from 'Sinai', but whether it was God-given or developed by Moses et al in order to flesh out and explain details not covered in writing, that's not knowable, really. But when Christians read in the NT about 'the traditions of men', this is what is being talked about. Standard understanding would have been (and still is) that the traditions of men - the teachings of the elders and sages - came 'from Sinai' and were passed down essentially unchanged - OR the standard understanding would have been (and still is) that these traditions evolved over time as new situations and new ideas came up. (as an aside, there is a Torah verse that gives authority to 'the judges of your day' to determine what the law is for that time - and it was absolutely a firm belief within the Pharisaic movement that the authority to determine the meaning of the written Law resided in a proper line of descent from Moses to Joshua to the Elders (Judges) to the Sanhedrin, to the leading rabbis - and Jesus thought that as well, if you can rely on his statement that 'the Pharisees...SIT IN THE SEAT OF MOSES' (this is important, because Moses was 'the Lawgiver') Matt. 23: 2-3.
The issue (as always) is: where does authority exist? If ONLY 'scripture' (sola scriptura) then anyone can have an interpretation and it can be considered as valid as any other (which is likely why there are something like 4000 or so 'denominations' in Protestantism generally). But if authority lies in scripture BUT authority also is given to, or can reside in, the generations of believers, then there is a body of (human) tradition which is also 'authoritative' within the limits of that same body of interpretation - thus, in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, there is church law and an official interpretation of what the written scripture MEANS, even if that interpretation changes over time, it changes according to certain pre-existing guidelines and rules.
At any rate, Judaism has always relied on the tandem authority of the Written Torah AND the Oral Torah (the existing body of interpretation, passed down as 'received tradition' (remember, 'kabbalah' means 'received') which now exists as the Talmud,the commentaries and the responsa literature (still ongoing).
One of the biggest differences between Orthodox Judaism and the other movements is exactly about how to view the existing Oral Law (which isn't 'oral' any longer but exists in the Talmud): orthodoxy gives the Talmud almost the same authority as Torah and are extremely hesitant to 'change' any existing interpretation - even today, the main reference for the majority of orthodox Jews on what to do and how to do it, is in a book written in the 16th century. The more liberal movements say that today's scholars have 'authority' to determine the law (and practice), with the Talmud being a major source and advisor, but not being the end of the matter. Both the Conservative and the Reform movement in the US have rabbinic committees whose job it is to consider and issue decisions on what the law - the written and oral Torahs - 'mean' in a modern context.
Example: Orthodoxy generally prohibits driving and using electricity on the Sabbath and holidays, because 'making fire' is forbidden on the Sabbath clear back to the Torah. The Conservative movement encourages members to restrict driving on the Sabbath and holidays to only that necessary to attend services, and has no strong prohibitions against the use of electricity on the Sabbath and holidays (viewing it as more analogous to water instead of fire), as long as there is no intention to violate the spirit of the observance of the holidays and Sabbath.
For instance, in our house, the TV goes off on Friday night and stays off all Saturday - but if this were an orthodox household, we'd have the lights on timers, we wouldn't use the stove at all, and in some households, we'd be unscrewing the light in the fridge so it wouldn't come on when we opened the door on the Sabbath. We'd even pre-tear the toilet paper ahead of time, so nobody would have to tear paper on the Sabbath - another prohibition from before tp existed.
Not all orthodox Jews go quite that far: some authorities say that since tp comes pre-perforated, it isn't necessary to tear it up ahead of time. In orthodox circles they discuss this stuff forever, Conservative Jews usually know about that, but don't do it, and Reform Jews, if they have heard of the practice at all, think it is ridiculous.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
agricola wrote:I don't. I study ABOUT it, I don't study to 'be' a kabbalist. It isn't my personal inclination (mysticism). But I can appreciate it as a system, and as I mentioned, many ideas have entered mainstream Judaism over the centuries, so most Jews are at least minimally familiar with some of the basic teachings.
....
Sorry, I get confused. I guess I should stop thinking this forum is for people to share their own journey and new path. So I guess the good news is that there is no way to agree or disagree with someone over this "new path" since no one here so far is claiming to be on this "new path". There is no personal experience and no journey being shared. This then is more a discussion about a theoretical path that someone may take. Seems like this is a better fit for Old Paths since this thread must then be supposedly a "discussion" about differing views about a path. In this forum no differing views are allowed (supposedly) as this is a forum about a members current journey (supposedly).
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
I created the Support and Agreement forums so folks can share with others without having to deal with those who want to express opposing views. Sometimes folks don't want an open discussion where Differing Views are expressed, they just want a place to share what they are currently reading, studying or thinking about with those who are interested in listening. I could create a Tea House for Support and Agreement only for broader topics, I suppose. But since there is currently no Tea House for Support and Agreement, agricola chose the most appropriate forum for her topic.
Have you considered posting on the Discussion Board? All the forums on that board allow Differing Views.
Yes, support and agreement is fine, perhaps I was confused by the words chosen to define and proscribe the New Paths forum. Specifically I was pondering the part about it being a place to share "your path" and why "you believe" in this path. Clearly this isn't a thread about anyone sharing their path or experience on said path...but if you declare this is the appropriate forum then so be it. So since I do not understand how it can be support or agreement since no one is on the path, and therefore no one can support or agree with anyone on this path, I thought perhaps it was misplaced. But yes, by all means support and agreement is the purpose..
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
agricola wrote:I don't. I study ABOUT it, I don't study to 'be' a kabbalist. It isn't my personal inclination (mysticism). But I can appreciate it as a system, and as I mentioned, many ideas have entered mainstream Judaism over the centuries, so most Jews are at least minimally familiar with some of the basic teachings.
....
Sorry, I get confused. I guess I should stop thinking this forum is for people to share their own journey and new path. So I guess the good news is that there is no way to agree or disagree with someone over this "new path" since no one here so far is claiming to be on this "new path". There is no personal experience and no journey being shared. This then is more a discussion about a theoretical path that someone may take. Seems like this is a better fit for Old Paths since this thread must then be supposedly a "discussion" about differing views about a path. In this forum no differing views are allowed (supposedly) as this is a forum about a members current journey (supposedly).
New Paths is a) for people to share about their own New Paths since leaving the CoC and
b) for threads that present useful information to board members ABOUT various (possible) New Paths.
so someone who is now, say, Baha'i, could post here about what Baha'ists believe and how their gatherings and lifestyles work, OR - if we didn't happen to have any Baha'i, someone who knows ABOUT that group could start a thread in New Paths that would have that same information in it, but of course without the level of personal experience.
Anyway, I volunteered to go through this book about Kabbalah if anybody was interested, and someone answered and said they'd be interested, so here I am. I am staying about a page or so ahead of what I post, in this one particular book which is 'Introduction to Kabbalah for Christians' by Rabbi Tamar Frankiel.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Maybe it is appropriate to think of New Paths as having a component of general religious topic education.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
I believe Frankiel did mention the tradition that one does not - or should not - study kabbalah until age 40 (it isn't the chronological age that is important - its just that someone is supposed to be a stable adult, ideally married and with a solid foundation of normal Jewish texts (Torah, Talmud) before starting with kabbalistic ideas).
From MyJewishLearning.com:
Question: I heard that you shouldn’t start learning Kabbalah until you’re 40 years old. Is this true? Why? Why 40 in particular?
–Simon, Japan
Answer: Remember when you used to ask your parents a question and they would say, “I’ll tell you when you’re older” and that seemed horribly unfair because you wanted to know now? But in retrospect, sometimes their tactics were understandable, right? That’s kind of what’s going on here.
In Pirkei Avot (5:21) we read a teaching of Yehuda ben Tama in which he discusses various ages and what one should be doing at that age. From him we learn that Bible study should begin at age five, the Mishnah at 10, and that at age 40 one should pursue binah, deep understanding. This statement led to the idea that people should not study philosophy or Kabbalah until they reach 40 years of age, a sentiment codified by 17th century rabbi Shabbatai HaKohen (known as the Shakh) in his commentary on the Shulhan Arukh (Yoreh Deah 246:6). expert
But why delay the study of Kabbalah at all? What’s the big deal? To answer this question I contacted Professor Elliot Wolfson, the Abraham Lieberman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at NYU. Professor Wolfson is an expert in Kabbalah, and has written a number of books about Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah, including, Along the Path: Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics and Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and Death.
It turns out just because the 40-year rule was stated, doesn’t mean people followed it. Prof. Wolfson pointed out that, “historically, there have been many Kabbalists who were younger than 40, [and] some did not even live long enough to make it to 40.” He suggested that 40 would have been the preferred age for deep study because it comes at a time when one is hopefully at a mature and more stable time in one’s life.
“For the most part, I do not see that this [rule] was ever taken too seriously until recent times,” Prof. Wolfson said, “as interest in Kabbalah has spread and the level of Jewish literacy has diminished, some religious authorities have felt the need to emphasize that one should not study Kabbalah until one is 40.”
Kabbalah isn’t just a particularly difficult text that you need great expertise to crack, though. The challenge of Kabbalah is its intrinsic mysticism, the concepts it teaches and draws out as it details the ten mystical attributes, or sefirot, of God. No one can say exactly when you’ll be ready to learn and really understand what’s in the Kabbalah–maybe you’ll be ready at 27, maybe not until 58, maybe never–but the idea is that you need to have a high degree of Jewish literacy, in addition to an ability to think deeply and mystically about God and God’s role in the world.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
agricola wrote:...Anyway, I volunteered to go through this book about Kabbalah if anybody was interested, and someone answered and said they'd be interested, so here I am. I am staying about a page or so ahead of what I post, in this one particular book which is 'Introduction to Kabbalah for Christians' by Rabbi Tamar Frankiel.
But of course, the point was never about whether this is a valid topic but whether this is the appropriate forum. The point was raised since the forum specifically states it is for sharing, agreeing with, and supporting those on a given path. None of those are possible since no one is claiming to be on that path.
agricola wrote:Maybe it is appropriate to think of New Paths as having a component of general religious topic education.
Now to the point of "education", yes who is against education? Perhaps I missed the reference to general education of others on various topics. But the site is decidedly against activities such as preach, proselytize, exhort, lecture, etc...which is a fine line between the notion of "educating" others. I have voiced the logic for my question since no sharing/support/agreement is possible and it is responded to as "this is the place, so drop it"...so I will drop the issue of forum choice. I am just glad nothing I have said can be deemed to be telling anyone their new path is wrong or that is disagreement with their path...again, since no one is on that path.
So since we are now embracing general education on various topics and no one is on this path, it would seem then that you are inviting education that both agrees and disagrees with this author/topic. I just want to be clear on the rules of this support forum. I mean if one is engaged in being educated they should want to hear all sides of an issue, pro and con...or else maybe it is not merely education.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
If I remember, klp, teresa did ask the group for input into exactly how to describe each of the forums. New Paths is for information about different faiths and denominations (including agnositicism and atheism) but it is not the place for objecting to or arguing about the pros and cons. It is 'all positive', basically.
To argue against, or object to the beliefs of some OTHER faith or denomination, you can go either to Old Paths (where people can safely point out issues with any and all faiths) or perhaps to the Coffee Shop, where topics go when they don't go anywhere else.
But primarily - since this is an ex- COC board and not an ex - EVERYTHING board, the only 'faith' or denomination folks are particularly interested in dissing is the CoC, specifically. Which may go in the 'how the CoC has affected me' forum (formerly known as 'Abuse') or - again, in Old Paths or the Coffee Shop.
However, at this point, I would venture to suggest that nobody here knows enough ABOUT Kabbalah (despite my no-doubt totally accurate and stellar complete exposition) to have any kind of serious dispute about it - and if someone DOES want to argue that 'kabbalah is silly and nobody sane would believe this', then there are doubtless any number of suitable OTHER WEBSITES where that can go on.
I mean, this book is just one of several basic introductions, and we aren't even finished with it yet.
Personally, I would think that ANY description of ANY denomination or faith's MYSTICAL traditions would have a tough time with CoC'ers and ex-CoC people, because the LAST thing a CoC is 'friendly' to, or open to the possibility of, is any sort of approach that borders on 'mysticism'. The CoC doesn't even like people 'feeling the spirit' when they pray in church, and is adamant that 'the gifts of the holy spirit' to the apostles died out as soon as they did.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
