|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Kabbalah||(Rated B-class)|
User:Johngagon 2006 07 26 Created.
To keep this a quality, neutral informative article, I need to rate and cite appropriately. I'm still in the process of rating my sources and looking for consensus and congruence amongst the myriad of sources on this topic. I am only one of many students on the topic but I am one that is not associated with any particular group practicing with it. I would like to take out some of the organizational ties and opinions separate or linked instead of embedded and conform with wikipedia standards here.
Comment re tarot section and sources
The attribution of Shemhamphorasch to the tarot is not due to Crowley.
Crowley lifted the attribution from the Golden Dawn's Book T (renamed Liber 78 by Crowley when published in the Equinox).
The Golden Dawn were not first to attribute Shemhamphorasch to the tarot - Eliphas Levi did it before them, in Clefs Majeures et Clavicules de Salomon (http://www.tarot.org.il/Library/Levi/Clavicules%20de%20Salomon.pdf)
J. Karlin claims the attribution is even earlier, but I haven't read his Rhapsodies of the Bizarre to check his claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Ricky for getting a mergeto on the other page. I didn't want the redirect to negate the presence of the other article. (still new). I would like to make redirects for the other spellings though since those spellings articles don't exist. The mergefrom I added needed that other page to get a mergeto but I had a hard time finding it after my accidental redirect. Thanks again.
Eliphas Levi's Decans
Regarding origination with Eliphas Levi...I agree and thanks for adding that.
It isn't clear to me whether or not the Aces or 10s were removed. Based on the table added to the article, the aces were removed but based on one of the sources I listed, it says that Eliphas Levi removed the 10s. Either way, there are 4 suits x 9 minor arcana cards to assign to half the Shemhamphorash (attributing 2 angels to each decan). http://www.tarot.org.il/Seventy%20Two/.
(a note to self: get all the spellings mapped/forwarding to help all other 'seekers' of the shemhamphorasch) Johngagon 08:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Corrupted angel names?
The table under Shemhamphorasch#Angels and Demons gives the angel names as transliterations of the three-letter names, without the endings -el, -iah, etc. That's fine, but in a few cases the transliteration seems obviously wrong. These cases are:
- 27: YLTh → Yereth (shouldn't it be Yeleth?)
- 48: MIY → Milah (shouldn't this be Miah?)
- 55: MBH → Mabeth (shouldn't this be Mabeh?)
- 61: VMK → Vameth (shouldn't this be Vamek?)
- 67: AIO → Asau (shouldn't this be Aiau?)
- 70: IBM → Yekem (shouldn't this be Yebem?)
Does anyone have an explanation? Or should I correct these?
I also note that Menak (66) has transliterated Quf as a 'k', not as a 'q' as elsewhere in the list. I would suggest the spelling "Menaq" for clarity and consistency. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, what are the stars on some of the names for? There is no note down the bottom to explain this! Fuzzypeg☻ 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
J. J. Hurtak's god-names
INFORMED1212 has edited the angel names and please do not place back on this the names from Adonai Yahweh to Zohar Haddah ... as these are not angel names but names illegally taken from a book from by J.J. Hurtak. These are not names that are traditional nor are they simply names in the Bible (as is) so to continue to place them on this page is not only incorrect as they do not represent what you are saying but they are illegal. If I see them on there again I will try to reach the editors of Wikipedia directly. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed1212 (talk • contribs)
- Right. From what I can see Hurtak is a fairly ideosynchratic author and these names are not representative of any significant tradition, but are based on his own experiences. Rather than adding the names back with a citation I concur that it is more appropriate to leave them out. Quoting information and ideas from a book is not necessarily illegal. In this situation it wouldn't be illegal, although it would require a citation. But I don't think it's notable information, so we'll leave it out of the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The actual "Names of God" are primarily the angel derived names. It could be noted perhaps as a citation footnote that "other names of God" in the same "quantity" can be found and are sometimes mentioned (I've seen) offline amongst some members of the occult when discussing this topic. Johngagon 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't remove large amounts of detail without first discussing. Thank you.
Johngagon 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the "Names of God" article had a higher resolution copy of the exact same picture as was featured on this page, so I replaced the old one with the bigger better pic. BTW, don't you hate when you forget to sign in before making an edit? >.< Yipely 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just reverted a change that renamed the heading 'Tarot' to 'Occult tarot' and changed the link to occult tarot. That link redirects to Tarot reading, which isn't really what's intended; tarot in occult usage (such as used by Levi, Crowley, the Golden Dawn, the BOTA, etc. etc.) more often involves meditation on the images, and using particular images as 'gateways' for pathworking. Divination is much less important.
Furthermore, the rewording introduces an implication that it was only 'occult' forms of tarot that people such as Levi believed could be associated with the 72 names; in fact the theory of Levi and the occultists who followed him was that tarot was occult in its very origins — 'occult tarot' would be a tautology in their eyes. Fuzzypeg★ 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Historians now find that tarot is not occult in its origins. The cards were made for a game similar to modern bridge. However, if you feel a distinction must be made between occult and divination, then simply edit the occult tarot page to where it's a distinct article instead of a re-directSmiloid (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hebrew article on shem ha-meforash
I added the Hebrew link for this article, but the Hebrew article has the name of 72 as a much lower sub-category. In Hebrew, "shem ha-meforash" is used for the 4-letter name of god, the tetragrammaton. It's use for the 72 letter name is secondary, only used by some schools of Jewish mystics. Perhaps this article should specify that the primary use of this Hebrew term is to refer to the 4-letter name of God?Jimhoward72 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I just did a search on this variant of the name, and found very little in the way of WP:RS. It looks as though the normal spelling is Shem ha-Mephorash, and I think the article's title should be changed. Also, Jim Cornwell self-published (footnote 2) and shouldn't be in the article as a reference. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- True, but changing the article in this way would imply introducing a more traditional Jewish interpretation into the article. So, changing the name to the more accurate spelling of Shem ha-Mephorash should imply introducing at least a section on the traditional Jewish usage (which would somewhat reflect information found in the Hebrew article). The slant of the article would thus drift from its Western occultism approach towards a more encompassing, accurate article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
the demons and correlating angels in various columns are incorrect, as is spelling and astrological markers. I'll be happy to edit it when I have more time.