Talk:Seder hishtalshelus
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The more standard (non-Yiddish-pronunciation) would be Seder hishtalsheluT - AnonMoos 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]The problem with the article is that there are almost no sources.Yehoishophot Oliver 09:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC) This article is very good, but it does need sources. There is not a single source given, so I put a tag on it. I hope someone with the knowledge will fix the problem. Kwork 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Subdividing topics in article
[edit]- Ideally, in my opinion, each of these levels (Reshimu, Adam Kadmon, Kav, and so on) should have an article of their own, as they are all major topics in Kabbalah and Chassidus. Also, it is not technically correct to include the levels above Atzilus in an article by the name Seder hishtalshelus, as these levels are above Seder hishtalshelus. At best, they (and various other levels) should be mentioned here briefly (as precursors to Seder hishtalshelus), and each discussed at greater length in their corresponding articles. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm upgrading the article: comprehensive Introduction paragraph, detailed lists of levels linked to sub-pages, distinguishing between Medieval/Cordoverian-Kabbalah (Five Worlds), Lurianic-Kabbalah (Tzimtzum, Tohu etc.), and (Habad)-Hasidic (pre-Tzimtzum?/Atzmus exploration) contributions. I'm separating discursive analogies-explanations from the concise listed levels, placing them instead in their own section lower down. This page needs to list all the distinguished levels between the Infinite and the Material World as a linked (where so far applicable) succession - some page on wikipedia needs to do this! I refered to your technical point that Seder Hishtalshelus can denote minimally only the comprehensive Four Worlds of our Order of Creation (Atzilut down) in the introductory header. However, I mentioned that more broadly it denotes all levels (I think) - at least that's how it is commonly used? (I've never heard its common usage to refer only to Atzilut down?) I think this page should carefully list all levels - if your point is still a (technical minor) problem, though I don't think so, then the page name should be changed to a different title (hopefully not though). There is no need for a wikipedia page to list only the levels from Atzilut down (though the page Four Worlds describes those levels). But this page is really needed as a location to comprehensively list all levels. The list should be concise but explanatory, rather like the "List of.." wikipedia pages, which is why I'm separating analogy explanations to their own section. NB. this page shows the Lurianic scheme (the second of Kabbalah's 2 theosophies, after the "Classical/Medieval/Zoharic"-Cordoverian, and the universally accepted basis of modern Kabbalah), therefore I pointed this out in the introduction, and distinguish between Medieval and Lurianic levels in the listing (the Lurianic only adds to the list, without subtracting any of the classical levels). More detailed explanation of the historical evolution of the Seder Hishtalshelut listing, can therefore be found on Lurianic Kabbalah and Tohu and Tikun pages (and Atzmus Hasidic thought page for the new contributions from Hasidism). Also NB. there is an Adam Kadmon page. April8 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also: isn't Atzilut part of the "Upper Unity-Yichuda Ila'ah", as it has no self-awareness, being still entirely Divinity? I though the "Lower Unity-Yichudah Tata'ah" began from Beriah down - self-aware independent creation? At the moment the page groups together listed levels until Atzilut as the Upper Unity, and the stages of Atzilus, Beriah, Yetzirah, Asiyah as the Lower Unity - surely incorrect about Atzilut? Also, the page doesn't explain what the two Unities refer to. (I would have added the explanation if it weren't for the confusion/mistake? about categorising Atzilus.) NB. the page Da'as Elyon and Da'as Tachton explains the Upper and Lower Unities. April8 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also: am I correct in saying that the levels before the Tzimtum (before Creation) are explained/explored most fully in Habad Hasidic thought (especially its investigation of Atzmus and the purpose of Creation-Dwelling Place in the Lowest Worlds)? I think Kabbalah describes these levels before creation in its esoteric way (how later Creation/Sefirot/Hebrew Letters are reflected/rooted prior to Creation in aspects of Divine self-revelation), but Habad Hasidic thought explains them in relation to man's psychological perception? Am I correct in this - do Habad discourses speak a lot about pre-tzimtum levels, or just the implications of Atzmus (Divine essence)? The pre-Tzimtum levels I listed come from the (Habad) website inner.org: The Worlds-Stages of the Creative Process from the Infinite Light to Our Physical World. Reading the website's 10 pages of levels before the Tzimtum, it looks like Kabbalah (citing eg. the opening of the Zohar and Sefer Yetzirah) outlines these pre-Creation levels esoterically, while Habad though elaborates them through explanation. For sure the explanation of the purpose of Creation differs between Kabbalah (the actualisation of the Sephirot to allow G-d to be Kind, Strict, Merciful etc) and Habad Hasidic thought (the revelation of Atzmus-Divine essence within limited Creation). Atzmus is not explored in Kabbalah, but is related to by the Baal Shem Tov (through the Divine soul and simple sincerity), and its philosophical implications are explored in Habad. April8 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also: isn't Atzilut part of the "Upper Unity-Yichuda Ila'ah", as it has no self-awareness, being still entirely Divinity? I though the "Lower Unity-Yichudah Tata'ah" began from Beriah down - self-aware independent creation? At the moment the page groups together listed levels until Atzilut as the Upper Unity, and the stages of Atzilus, Beriah, Yetzirah, Asiyah as the Lower Unity - surely incorrect about Atzilut? Also, the page doesn't explain what the two Unities refer to. (I would have added the explanation if it weren't for the confusion/mistake? about categorising Atzilus.) NB. the page Da'as Elyon and Da'as Tachton explains the Upper and Lower Unities. April8 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm upgrading the article: comprehensive Introduction paragraph, detailed lists of levels linked to sub-pages, distinguishing between Medieval/Cordoverian-Kabbalah (Five Worlds), Lurianic-Kabbalah (Tzimtzum, Tohu etc.), and (Habad)-Hasidic (pre-Tzimtzum?/Atzmus exploration) contributions. I'm separating discursive analogies-explanations from the concise listed levels, placing them instead in their own section lower down. This page needs to list all the distinguished levels between the Infinite and the Material World as a linked (where so far applicable) succession - some page on wikipedia needs to do this! I refered to your technical point that Seder Hishtalshelus can denote minimally only the comprehensive Four Worlds of our Order of Creation (Atzilut down) in the introductory header. However, I mentioned that more broadly it denotes all levels (I think) - at least that's how it is commonly used? (I've never heard its common usage to refer only to Atzilut down?) I think this page should carefully list all levels - if your point is still a (technical minor) problem, though I don't think so, then the page name should be changed to a different title (hopefully not though). There is no need for a wikipedia page to list only the levels from Atzilut down (though the page Four Worlds describes those levels). But this page is really needed as a location to comprehensively list all levels. The list should be concise but explanatory, rather like the "List of.." wikipedia pages, which is why I'm separating analogy explanations to their own section. NB. this page shows the Lurianic scheme (the second of Kabbalah's 2 theosophies, after the "Classical/Medieval/Zoharic"-Cordoverian, and the universally accepted basis of modern Kabbalah), therefore I pointed this out in the introduction, and distinguish between Medieval and Lurianic levels in the listing (the Lurianic only adds to the list, without subtracting any of the classical levels). More detailed explanation of the historical evolution of the Seder Hishtalshelut listing, can therefore be found on Lurianic Kabbalah and Tohu and Tikun pages (and Atzmus Hasidic thought page for the new contributions from Hasidism). Also NB. there is an Adam Kadmon page. April8 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Atzilus
[edit]I'm moving Atzilus into the "Upper Unity" section. Surely, and most commonly in Chabad thought, "Lower Unity" begins with Beriah - the start of ego/self awareness/independence from God. I guess some Kabbalistic and Habad texts sometimes describe Atzilus as part of the Lower Unity, but in general this is surely not the case. (All Habad philosophical descriptions are relative, depending on context, analysing different aspects of divinity. In most contexts/aspects, Atzilus is considered pure divinity, nullified to the Ohr Ein Sof, realising its own non-existence - Bittul Ha-Atzmis Nullification of Essence. Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah can only achieve Bittul Ha-Yesh Nullification of Being). Certainly this change seems necessary in view of most references to Atzilus in Kabbalah and Hasidus, and since no one replied to this question I posed a few years ago, above. Even if others disagree, and find references including Atzilus in the Lower Unity, these are surely not the main designation of Atzilus. If they find such references, they could be added in a line of text with citations, describing that "sometimes, in some relative contexts, Atzilus is included as part of the Lower Unity", perhaps citing reasons in the footnotes. April8 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this a Chasidic idea? Or peculiar to Chabad only?
[edit]This article needs more citations. Important: Is this a kabbalistic idea in general, or an idea only found in Chasidic groups? Indeed, is it Chasidic in general, or perculiar to one particule Chasidic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8202:14B0:E9AF:754C:3C6B:5A4 (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)