What do you think?
Rate this book
The Essence of Kabbalah
Book by Lancaster, Brian L.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published October 10, 2005
25 people are currently reading
89 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 9, 2017
This book gives a portrayal of the Jewish mystical system known as Kabbalah. Brain Lancaster tells how the Kabbalah is understood and practiced. He also attempts to show its validity. In chapter one he provides a general introduction to the Kabbalah. From there in chapters two and three he gives its origins and historical development. Then, in chapter four he describes a view of creation seen through the Kabbalah. Chapter five discusses how the intrinsic meaning of the Torah is revealed by studying the written and oral Torah. In chapters six and seven he covers the practices of the Kabbalah through language, prayer, and Halakhah (Jewish law). Finally, he attempts to show the correspondence between the modern world of science and the Kabbalah. Throughout the book he quotes at length passages from the classic texts of Kabbalah. He also provides a glossary at the end of the book.
I used attempts twice in my synopsis because I think Lancaster fails in his attempts. Because of this most of my comments are critical of the book. I did not originally intend to do this type of commentary, but the flaws in his arguments had me changing my mind. I will attempt to group my criticisms into categories with a category devoted to other things in the book I found interesting. (Kindle locations are given at the beginning of each comment)
Here are language oriented criticisms:
[245] He gives an exegesis of “bet,” the first letter of beginning in Hebrew. By playing around with the letter it goes to “knee” as in “every knee shall bend,” saying that this means a place. Then, “house” is said to mean the place of the king [god]. Both “knee” and “house” begin with the letter “bet.” If the letter “bet” can be played around with in this manner it can be played to mean anything, like a jazz improvisation.
[442] Supposedly this is an explanation: “(Song 5:11), ‘His locks are wavy and black like a raven’. What does it mean by ‘His locks are wavy [kutsotav taltalim?]’? On each and every jot of letters [kots] there are heaps and heaps [tilei tilim] of legal interpretations.” Sometimes you just have to laugh at some of the interpretations in the book. Soon after this [450] he says how this “captures the playful and creative . . .” Playful alright!
[621] “The Hebrew Bible, and most especially the Torah, is the point of reference for all subsequent developments in Jewish mysticism. Kabbalists invariably ground their teachings in the discourse of the Hebrew Bible.” This is exactly what the deconstructionists do when they interpret a text, and in the hands of a person like Jacques Derrida, like the Kabbalists, can make it mean anything.
[657] “To put it bluntly, if the claim that kabbalistic ideas lie beneath the surface of the Torah is false, then [sic] the legitimacy of Kabbalah crashes.” He never actually proves that this is true. So, they are just playing with the texts, just like the deconstructionists.
[694] Out of context I quote: “Indeed, an allusion to this idea is given in the etymology of the name Betsalel . . .” This is one of the analyses that Robert M. Price gives in deconstructing (different from the loose deconstructing of Derrida) the Moses stories in Moses and Minimalism, showing how the parts of the stories are fabricated by explaining how they came to be by an etymological analysis.
[1737] “The world of Yetsirah is defined by the power of language, for our thoughts are structured by language, and ultimately it is language that determines action.” I doubt that we think in language. (see my blogs “What Do You Mean?” @ https://wordpress.com/post/aquestione... or “Is Strong AI Possible?” @ https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress...)
[1930] “It is characteristic, then, that a verse that means one thing on the surface can be pregnant with a more complex teaching when viewed in a different light.” Yeah, it is called deconstructionism. A mainly bogus form of textual analysis that ignores authorial intent.*
[2257] “This is the number [the gematria of Jacob] of the sacred Name, since it is the sum of the squared value of each of its letters (10 x 10 + 5 x 5 + 6 x 6 + 5 x 5 = 186).” I had to laugh out loud on this one. I say it is quite a stretch.
Here are some of his views on the use of questions, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with:
[307] He writes: “the ability to ask a question, even though the answer cannot be known, that is indicative of a higher level of mind . . .” Why is asking a question like this an indication of a higher mind? I suppose we could agree with Richard Feynman when he said: “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” Now this seems like wisdom to me.
[1561] “The asking of questions represents the distinctive potential of man.” This maybe true if it takes language to ask questions. Oh, what about women, do not they also ask questions.
[1641] “As I mentioned above, it is the ability to ask questions that marks us out as humans.” Much better.
[1876] “Asking the right questions is always the key towards perceiving the meaning of the text.” Again, the importance of asking questions.
[1893] “Adam is the question-asking creature . . .” What about Eve? After all she was the one that brought knowledge to the human mind (not to say the Bible is believable). Eve is the real hero of the book of Genesis.
[2202] “. . . there is therefore a question that can actually never be answered . . .” Never. Is it really a question than. see Feynman quote above.
Here are some psychology and neuroscience criticisms:
[461] “The brain interprets the chaotic nerve impulses coming from the senses by imposing order and establishing connections to past memories.” This is scientifically wrong in that the nerve impulses coming from the senses [like the eyes] is not chaotic, but very coherent. It is true that after this visual systems provide more order to these ordered impulses.
[684] Basically, he says that wisdom comes before understanding and knowledge in the divine—“We find the sequence of ‘wisdom, understanding and knowledge’ in several biblical sources.” While this may be true of some definition of god, I say the sequence in humans is understanding, knowledge, wisdom.
[1736] “Our actions are determined by thoughts, which transcend the spatio-temporal domain.” There is absolutely no evidence for any decision being transcendent, let alone any thoughts whatsoever.
[2757] “The realm of pure thought is a realm where normal thought is annihilated, together with the ego which illusorily believes that it controls those thoughts.” First, there is no evidence for an ego in Freud’s sense, and second, self-consciousness without an I is an oxymoron.
[3051] “Our sense of self is constructed as a narrative. In a very real sense, we are the person we tell ourselves that we are. Of course, much of this self-narrative takes place below the surface of consciousness.” First, no self, no narrative; A self below the level of consciousness is no self. Second, this assumes we think in language, which is suspect in my opinion. If I am right the narrative is a translation of the brain’s production of self.
[3065] He talks about some psychological knot untying giving the means to enter “into an undifferentiated state of consciousness.” This is most likely just a state of hallucination. What could it even mean to have this state of consciousness. For in order for there to be a state of consciousness at all, one needs a coherent sense of self, and this undifferentiated state just will not do. Also it sounds like a dissociative disease.
[3096] He presents a figure that is suppose to link the creation of a golem [animated hunk of clay in human form] with artificial intelligence [AI] and transpersonal psychology [TP]. First, there is absolutely no bona fide evidence for the existence of any golem. Second, there is no necessary connection between any of them, in particularly AI and TP. Third, TP is a totally conjectured form of psychology.
[3133] “It appears that two features of brain functioning are critical for consciousness. The first is that of phase synchrony in neural systems . . . The second feature currently favoured in neuroscience to ‘explain’ the brain’s role in consciousness is that of recurrent processing.” Both of these very well maybe involved in consciousness, but to claim there is somehow a connection with the Kabbalah’s understanding is ludicrous. There is no necessary connection, except in the mind of the author and the kabbalists.
[3156] In another figure he claims a connection with human consciousness and a consciousness that “pervades the whole of creation.” There is no consciousness that pervades the universe. He gives absolutely no evidence for this consciousness, other than the mumbo-jumbo of the Kabbalah.
[3173] “There is no unequivocal evidence to assert that it [consciousness] is actually generated by the brain itself.” Nothing in science is absolutely unequivocal. Even the best confirmed theory is open to challenge, but there are certain areas of science where the chance of a significant change is almost nil. Of course, brain science is not one of these areas, but we know enough that there has never been an instance of consciousness without a working brain. To claim that it comes from elsewhere is just not believable enough to be considered. Then, “. . . the essence of consciousness is viewed as a blessing from God.” There is no evidence for god either. And, it is the onus of the claimer for the existence of something to show evidence for it.
Criticisms related to physics and biology:
[767] “ Day 1: Creation of light. Hesed is the principle of expansion. Light is the example of this principle par excellence, for light cannot but expand to fill any region from its source (with the notable exception of black holes).” This is not exactly so. Light travels in photons or in waves. The expansion is our perception of light traveling from its source.
[3083] Here is a bit more of the author’s scientific ignorance: “Just as a seed has to penetrate the darkness of the earth in order to grow . . .” Now, never mind the context. Seeds can grow in more than just dirt. There is hydroponic agriculture, and there are plants that grow on other plants.
[3194] “Anyone who has attempted to grapple with modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, will know that the world of the senses that constitutes our view of reality is but a surface to a much more complex world at the micro-level.” Actually, the quantum realm is the simplest of all phenomena. Even single molecules are more complex. From there it only gets much more complex until you reach the brain, said by many to be the most complex object in the universe. How they claim to know this I do not know. Although, it could legitimately be considered the most complex object that we have any experience of.
[3204] “Mystics {assert} that consensual reality is but a mask to deeper forces and structures. This view relates to the assertion in quantum mechanics that the logic of our everyday world differs from that of the micro-particles . . . The world revealed by modern physics is one in which particles may go backwards in time, may seemingly be in two places at once, and are able to move from one place to another without passing through the space between them . . . Kabbalah is not uncomfortable with these phenomena; they are not out of place with the secret world revealed at the deepest level of the Torah.” It is true that these events happen at the quantum level, but that they are in anyway connected with mysticism, Kabbalah or not, is way out of bounds. Just because kabbalists find hidden meaning in their reading of the Torah is no reason to think there is any hidden meaning in quantum mechanics. There is nothing hidden about it. Scientists have actually observed these phenomena whether or not they have to rely on instrumentation or not. Nothing of any hidden connection between mysticism and any level of physics has been observed. The point about logic is immaterial. Humans are the ones that dictate logic, not the world. Just because certain man-made logics will not work at the quantum level does not necessarily mean that this level actually works in another logic. The universe operates in its own manner whatever logic we may try to apply to it.
[3209] “It is unclear how the paradoxical realm of the quantum level . . . translates into the order of objects and events we daily encounter. Science has yet to provide adequate answers.” I think he confuses science with philosophy. Physicists do understand how the atomic world works, and how that world relates to the interactions between atoms, which is best describe through chemical reactions. Science may not understand everything that occurs, but to claim that mysticism in whatever form is related to how the universe operates is not a valid argument. To look to mysticism for any answers here is nonsense. A likeness shows nothing.
[3219] He claims: “There is profound concordance between {the physical exploring a }level of reality ruled by its distinctive and bizarre logic and yet, at the same time, living by the everyday logic of our shared world, and the kabbalist exploring the codified depths of the Torah . . .” More bunk. The logic that some quantum physicist choose to use is not bizarre in anyway. It is just a logic that eliminates the law of the exclude middle (something is either A or not-A). This type of logic is not bizarre, it is just different. There are, after all, many types of logics.
[3230] “In order to achieve the synthesis that string theory brings to physical theories . . .” String theory maybe a beautiful mathematical theory, but there is no adequate evidence that it represents reality.
Biblical Criticisms:
[824] “These aspects [never mind which] of the biblical background to kabbalah illustrate the consonance between the structures encoded in the Torah and the system of sefirot [one of the main focuses of Kabbalah] as articulated in later kabbalistic works.” Just because the structure can be given, does not mean they are necessarily connected—more made up in my opinion.
[878] “That the Kabbalah simply reveals what had been intentionally concealed in the Bible can never be fully proven. But it is a tenet of faith for those who embrace the authentic Jewish tradition.” (italics are mine) Exactly. Nothing he says can be proven, let alone that the Bible is god’s creation. And, faith is a bad way to know anything. I might have faith [meaning trust] in a friend, but I do not know my friend in this way.
[962] Speaking of Jacob: “He placed these in front of the animals’ drinking troughs, with the effect that when the females conceived they gave birth to streaked, speckled and spotted lambs.” This is not Darwinian evolution, but Lamarkian which a discredited form of evolution.
[990] He writes: “. . . in the ritual pertaining to a woman suspected of infidelity (Numbers 5). The priest is enjoined to ‘blot out’ key writings into the potion that the woman is made to drink.” (italics are mine) He shows no awareness or chooses to ignore the cruelty involved with this practice. Num 5:22 “’. . . May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’” (ESV) She evens has to say amen; how pathetic.
[1918] “. . . in the Torah and serves to emphasize the need to be compassionate to others. The ancestral memory of the pain of being harshly treated should lead to a refinement of character that fosters an ideal society.” Oh yeah, just stone people for Sabbath violations.
[2352] He presents the story of the tower of Babel here. He makes the claim that Hebrew was the first language of man and of god. This is so far off. There are many languages much older than Hebrew, such as Sumerian and Sanskrit.
[2866] After quoting Ezekiel 1:26, he writes: “Ezekiel was evidently seeing in a vision an aspect of God in human form.” Some Christians would interpret this as a vision of Jesus.
[2912] Giving charity is interpreted in this way: “One is not simply giving to the needy; rather, by promoting the harmony of the sefirotic system [the main structure of the Kabbalah], one is correcting the channels through which sustenance flows from the En Sof [the highest form of god in the Kabbalah].” I did not know god would need correcting—strange theology.
Last I have things in the book I found interesting but not necessarily critical:
[165] He presents this quote from a Jewish prayer service: “renewing each day the works of creation.” This has similarities with Kalam theology in Islam. In Kalam there is no cause and effect. God directs each act—the act thought of as the cause and the act thought of as the effect, so it only appears as cause and effect.
[1400] “. . . for His [god’s] creation of the worlds … then the Infinite contracted Himself into a central point which is truly in the centre of the light, and that light was contracted and withdrew to the sides around the central point.” So god turned himself into a black hole.
[1671] “The kabbalistic tradition holds that ours was not the first cosmos to be created.” You mean god screwed up.
[2976] He relates how three individuals are told by their grandfathers an incantation to bring back a golem, left in suspended animation by a sixteenth century rabbi, at their bar mitzvahs, one of which was the pioneering artificial intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky, who is described as “a complete rationalist.” He reports that “Minsky, evidently, not only did not believe the story, but had forgotten the incantation, so we do not know whether his version was also the same [like the other two].” Good for Minsky. I think there is a good chance the whole story was made up by someone.
At the end of of reading this book it dawned on me that in all probability mystical states are hallucinational states.
I have no idea whether Lancaster is an actual practicing kabbalist, but despite my many criticisms of the book, he did a very good job explaining the structure and reasoning behind the Jewish mystical system known as Kabbalah. This alone kept me on board as far as finishing the book. I did have fun mounting my counter-evidence to his supposed proofs that the Kabbalah is a legitimate view of reality. So, the book gets a passing grade – good.
I think that anyone interested in the Kabbalah would like this book. If you are the spiritual type, which I am not, I think you will possibly deepen your spiritual understanding. I would only say that from my perspective one has to take some of the book with a large grain of salt.
* Except Price’s and his ilk of the deconstruction of the Bible.
I used attempts twice in my synopsis because I think Lancaster fails in his attempts. Because of this most of my comments are critical of the book. I did not originally intend to do this type of commentary, but the flaws in his arguments had me changing my mind. I will attempt to group my criticisms into categories with a category devoted to other things in the book I found interesting. (Kindle locations are given at the beginning of each comment)
Here are language oriented criticisms:
[245] He gives an exegesis of “bet,” the first letter of beginning in Hebrew. By playing around with the letter it goes to “knee” as in “every knee shall bend,” saying that this means a place. Then, “house” is said to mean the place of the king [god]. Both “knee” and “house” begin with the letter “bet.” If the letter “bet” can be played around with in this manner it can be played to mean anything, like a jazz improvisation.
[442] Supposedly this is an explanation: “(Song 5:11), ‘His locks are wavy and black like a raven’. What does it mean by ‘His locks are wavy [kutsotav taltalim?]’? On each and every jot of letters [kots] there are heaps and heaps [tilei tilim] of legal interpretations.” Sometimes you just have to laugh at some of the interpretations in the book. Soon after this [450] he says how this “captures the playful and creative . . .” Playful alright!
[621] “The Hebrew Bible, and most especially the Torah, is the point of reference for all subsequent developments in Jewish mysticism. Kabbalists invariably ground their teachings in the discourse of the Hebrew Bible.” This is exactly what the deconstructionists do when they interpret a text, and in the hands of a person like Jacques Derrida, like the Kabbalists, can make it mean anything.
[657] “To put it bluntly, if the claim that kabbalistic ideas lie beneath the surface of the Torah is false, then [sic] the legitimacy of Kabbalah crashes.” He never actually proves that this is true. So, they are just playing with the texts, just like the deconstructionists.
[694] Out of context I quote: “Indeed, an allusion to this idea is given in the etymology of the name Betsalel . . .” This is one of the analyses that Robert M. Price gives in deconstructing (different from the loose deconstructing of Derrida) the Moses stories in Moses and Minimalism, showing how the parts of the stories are fabricated by explaining how they came to be by an etymological analysis.
[1737] “The world of Yetsirah is defined by the power of language, for our thoughts are structured by language, and ultimately it is language that determines action.” I doubt that we think in language. (see my blogs “What Do You Mean?” @ https://wordpress.com/post/aquestione... or “Is Strong AI Possible?” @ https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress...)
[1930] “It is characteristic, then, that a verse that means one thing on the surface can be pregnant with a more complex teaching when viewed in a different light.” Yeah, it is called deconstructionism. A mainly bogus form of textual analysis that ignores authorial intent.*
[2257] “This is the number [the gematria of Jacob] of the sacred Name, since it is the sum of the squared value of each of its letters (10 x 10 + 5 x 5 + 6 x 6 + 5 x 5 = 186).” I had to laugh out loud on this one. I say it is quite a stretch.
Here are some of his views on the use of questions, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with:
[307] He writes: “the ability to ask a question, even though the answer cannot be known, that is indicative of a higher level of mind . . .” Why is asking a question like this an indication of a higher mind? I suppose we could agree with Richard Feynman when he said: “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” Now this seems like wisdom to me.
[1561] “The asking of questions represents the distinctive potential of man.” This maybe true if it takes language to ask questions. Oh, what about women, do not they also ask questions.
[1641] “As I mentioned above, it is the ability to ask questions that marks us out as humans.” Much better.
[1876] “Asking the right questions is always the key towards perceiving the meaning of the text.” Again, the importance of asking questions.
[1893] “Adam is the question-asking creature . . .” What about Eve? After all she was the one that brought knowledge to the human mind (not to say the Bible is believable). Eve is the real hero of the book of Genesis.
[2202] “. . . there is therefore a question that can actually never be answered . . .” Never. Is it really a question than. see Feynman quote above.
Here are some psychology and neuroscience criticisms:
[461] “The brain interprets the chaotic nerve impulses coming from the senses by imposing order and establishing connections to past memories.” This is scientifically wrong in that the nerve impulses coming from the senses [like the eyes] is not chaotic, but very coherent. It is true that after this visual systems provide more order to these ordered impulses.
[684] Basically, he says that wisdom comes before understanding and knowledge in the divine—“We find the sequence of ‘wisdom, understanding and knowledge’ in several biblical sources.” While this may be true of some definition of god, I say the sequence in humans is understanding, knowledge, wisdom.
[1736] “Our actions are determined by thoughts, which transcend the spatio-temporal domain.” There is absolutely no evidence for any decision being transcendent, let alone any thoughts whatsoever.
[2757] “The realm of pure thought is a realm where normal thought is annihilated, together with the ego which illusorily believes that it controls those thoughts.” First, there is no evidence for an ego in Freud’s sense, and second, self-consciousness without an I is an oxymoron.
[3051] “Our sense of self is constructed as a narrative. In a very real sense, we are the person we tell ourselves that we are. Of course, much of this self-narrative takes place below the surface of consciousness.” First, no self, no narrative; A self below the level of consciousness is no self. Second, this assumes we think in language, which is suspect in my opinion. If I am right the narrative is a translation of the brain’s production of self.
[3065] He talks about some psychological knot untying giving the means to enter “into an undifferentiated state of consciousness.” This is most likely just a state of hallucination. What could it even mean to have this state of consciousness. For in order for there to be a state of consciousness at all, one needs a coherent sense of self, and this undifferentiated state just will not do. Also it sounds like a dissociative disease.
[3096] He presents a figure that is suppose to link the creation of a golem [animated hunk of clay in human form] with artificial intelligence [AI] and transpersonal psychology [TP]. First, there is absolutely no bona fide evidence for the existence of any golem. Second, there is no necessary connection between any of them, in particularly AI and TP. Third, TP is a totally conjectured form of psychology.
[3133] “It appears that two features of brain functioning are critical for consciousness. The first is that of phase synchrony in neural systems . . . The second feature currently favoured in neuroscience to ‘explain’ the brain’s role in consciousness is that of recurrent processing.” Both of these very well maybe involved in consciousness, but to claim there is somehow a connection with the Kabbalah’s understanding is ludicrous. There is no necessary connection, except in the mind of the author and the kabbalists.
[3156] In another figure he claims a connection with human consciousness and a consciousness that “pervades the whole of creation.” There is no consciousness that pervades the universe. He gives absolutely no evidence for this consciousness, other than the mumbo-jumbo of the Kabbalah.
[3173] “There is no unequivocal evidence to assert that it [consciousness] is actually generated by the brain itself.” Nothing in science is absolutely unequivocal. Even the best confirmed theory is open to challenge, but there are certain areas of science where the chance of a significant change is almost nil. Of course, brain science is not one of these areas, but we know enough that there has never been an instance of consciousness without a working brain. To claim that it comes from elsewhere is just not believable enough to be considered. Then, “. . . the essence of consciousness is viewed as a blessing from God.” There is no evidence for god either. And, it is the onus of the claimer for the existence of something to show evidence for it.
Criticisms related to physics and biology:
[767] “ Day 1: Creation of light. Hesed is the principle of expansion. Light is the example of this principle par excellence, for light cannot but expand to fill any region from its source (with the notable exception of black holes).” This is not exactly so. Light travels in photons or in waves. The expansion is our perception of light traveling from its source.
[3083] Here is a bit more of the author’s scientific ignorance: “Just as a seed has to penetrate the darkness of the earth in order to grow . . .” Now, never mind the context. Seeds can grow in more than just dirt. There is hydroponic agriculture, and there are plants that grow on other plants.
[3194] “Anyone who has attempted to grapple with modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, will know that the world of the senses that constitutes our view of reality is but a surface to a much more complex world at the micro-level.” Actually, the quantum realm is the simplest of all phenomena. Even single molecules are more complex. From there it only gets much more complex until you reach the brain, said by many to be the most complex object in the universe. How they claim to know this I do not know. Although, it could legitimately be considered the most complex object that we have any experience of.
[3204] “Mystics {assert} that consensual reality is but a mask to deeper forces and structures. This view relates to the assertion in quantum mechanics that the logic of our everyday world differs from that of the micro-particles . . . The world revealed by modern physics is one in which particles may go backwards in time, may seemingly be in two places at once, and are able to move from one place to another without passing through the space between them . . . Kabbalah is not uncomfortable with these phenomena; they are not out of place with the secret world revealed at the deepest level of the Torah.” It is true that these events happen at the quantum level, but that they are in anyway connected with mysticism, Kabbalah or not, is way out of bounds. Just because kabbalists find hidden meaning in their reading of the Torah is no reason to think there is any hidden meaning in quantum mechanics. There is nothing hidden about it. Scientists have actually observed these phenomena whether or not they have to rely on instrumentation or not. Nothing of any hidden connection between mysticism and any level of physics has been observed. The point about logic is immaterial. Humans are the ones that dictate logic, not the world. Just because certain man-made logics will not work at the quantum level does not necessarily mean that this level actually works in another logic. The universe operates in its own manner whatever logic we may try to apply to it.
[3209] “It is unclear how the paradoxical realm of the quantum level . . . translates into the order of objects and events we daily encounter. Science has yet to provide adequate answers.” I think he confuses science with philosophy. Physicists do understand how the atomic world works, and how that world relates to the interactions between atoms, which is best describe through chemical reactions. Science may not understand everything that occurs, but to claim that mysticism in whatever form is related to how the universe operates is not a valid argument. To look to mysticism for any answers here is nonsense. A likeness shows nothing.
[3219] He claims: “There is profound concordance between {the physical exploring a }level of reality ruled by its distinctive and bizarre logic and yet, at the same time, living by the everyday logic of our shared world, and the kabbalist exploring the codified depths of the Torah . . .” More bunk. The logic that some quantum physicist choose to use is not bizarre in anyway. It is just a logic that eliminates the law of the exclude middle (something is either A or not-A). This type of logic is not bizarre, it is just different. There are, after all, many types of logics.
[3230] “In order to achieve the synthesis that string theory brings to physical theories . . .” String theory maybe a beautiful mathematical theory, but there is no adequate evidence that it represents reality.
Biblical Criticisms:
[824] “These aspects [never mind which] of the biblical background to kabbalah illustrate the consonance between the structures encoded in the Torah and the system of sefirot [one of the main focuses of Kabbalah] as articulated in later kabbalistic works.” Just because the structure can be given, does not mean they are necessarily connected—more made up in my opinion.
[878] “That the Kabbalah simply reveals what had been intentionally concealed in the Bible can never be fully proven. But it is a tenet of faith for those who embrace the authentic Jewish tradition.” (italics are mine) Exactly. Nothing he says can be proven, let alone that the Bible is god’s creation. And, faith is a bad way to know anything. I might have faith [meaning trust] in a friend, but I do not know my friend in this way.
[962] Speaking of Jacob: “He placed these in front of the animals’ drinking troughs, with the effect that when the females conceived they gave birth to streaked, speckled and spotted lambs.” This is not Darwinian evolution, but Lamarkian which a discredited form of evolution.
[990] He writes: “. . . in the ritual pertaining to a woman suspected of infidelity (Numbers 5). The priest is enjoined to ‘blot out’ key writings into the potion that the woman is made to drink.” (italics are mine) He shows no awareness or chooses to ignore the cruelty involved with this practice. Num 5:22 “’. . . May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’” (ESV) She evens has to say amen; how pathetic.
[1918] “. . . in the Torah and serves to emphasize the need to be compassionate to others. The ancestral memory of the pain of being harshly treated should lead to a refinement of character that fosters an ideal society.” Oh yeah, just stone people for Sabbath violations.
[2352] He presents the story of the tower of Babel here. He makes the claim that Hebrew was the first language of man and of god. This is so far off. There are many languages much older than Hebrew, such as Sumerian and Sanskrit.
[2866] After quoting Ezekiel 1:26, he writes: “Ezekiel was evidently seeing in a vision an aspect of God in human form.” Some Christians would interpret this as a vision of Jesus.
[2912] Giving charity is interpreted in this way: “One is not simply giving to the needy; rather, by promoting the harmony of the sefirotic system [the main structure of the Kabbalah], one is correcting the channels through which sustenance flows from the En Sof [the highest form of god in the Kabbalah].” I did not know god would need correcting—strange theology.
Last I have things in the book I found interesting but not necessarily critical:
[165] He presents this quote from a Jewish prayer service: “renewing each day the works of creation.” This has similarities with Kalam theology in Islam. In Kalam there is no cause and effect. God directs each act—the act thought of as the cause and the act thought of as the effect, so it only appears as cause and effect.
[1400] “. . . for His [god’s] creation of the worlds … then the Infinite contracted Himself into a central point which is truly in the centre of the light, and that light was contracted and withdrew to the sides around the central point.” So god turned himself into a black hole.
[1671] “The kabbalistic tradition holds that ours was not the first cosmos to be created.” You mean god screwed up.
[2976] He relates how three individuals are told by their grandfathers an incantation to bring back a golem, left in suspended animation by a sixteenth century rabbi, at their bar mitzvahs, one of which was the pioneering artificial intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky, who is described as “a complete rationalist.” He reports that “Minsky, evidently, not only did not believe the story, but had forgotten the incantation, so we do not know whether his version was also the same [like the other two].” Good for Minsky. I think there is a good chance the whole story was made up by someone.
At the end of of reading this book it dawned on me that in all probability mystical states are hallucinational states.
I have no idea whether Lancaster is an actual practicing kabbalist, but despite my many criticisms of the book, he did a very good job explaining the structure and reasoning behind the Jewish mystical system known as Kabbalah. This alone kept me on board as far as finishing the book. I did have fun mounting my counter-evidence to his supposed proofs that the Kabbalah is a legitimate view of reality. So, the book gets a passing grade – good.
I think that anyone interested in the Kabbalah would like this book. If you are the spiritual type, which I am not, I think you will possibly deepen your spiritual understanding. I would only say that from my perspective one has to take some of the book with a large grain of salt.
* Except Price’s and his ilk of the deconstruction of the Bible.
July 7, 2024
Este é um livro básico para qualquer pessoa interessada em entender o que a Cabala é e significa no século XXI. Depois de uma viagem inicial pelas descrições de Rav e Yehuda Berg desse conhecimento antigo, procurei algo mais profundo, articulado e esquemático. Achei o livro de Lancaster muito bom. Brian explica como a Cabala mística preenche a lacuna de conhecimento que temos sobre o misticismo judaico. Essa lacuna passa através do mito da criação que não pode ser percebido no sentido literal que está descrito na Bíblia. A Cabala passa também pelos nomes de Deus algo que do lado cristão pode ser entendido como fantasioso, mas que é uma parte essencial na veneração de Deus pelos judeus. A oração também é vista não como uma recitação de palavras vazias, mas como uma visualização de palavras e frases que conectam o fiel com Deus. Sob o ponto de vista da Cabala, a Criação não é uma fase finita da formação do mundo e da raça humana. É um processo contínuo em que o Homem deve ter uma palavra a dizer e um papel a desempenhar. Os Humanos participam nesse processo pelas suas ações e palavras. Deus observa o que os humanos fazem e, de alguma forma, responde, em Seu devido tempo, aos seus desejos. Sob o ponto de vista da Cabalá, a Criação não era uma fase finita da formação do mundo e da raça humana. É um processo contínuo em que o Homem deve ter uma palavra a dizer e um papel a desempenhar. Então os Humanos participam nesse processo por suas ações e diz. Deus observa o que os humanos fazem e, de alguma forma, responde, em Seu devido tempo, aos seus desejos. Tudo o que os homens fazem tem efeitos na vida dos outros e retorna à pessoa como recompensa ou punição. Tudo também está relacionado e nada acontece por acaso.
March 25, 2015
Kabbalah tries to capture the essence of the centuries old Kabbalistic approach to Judaism, a mystical quest toward union with the divine. Very interesting -- based in the study of the Torah (the old testament), especially the creation and the prophets. Also a very deep focus on prayer and concentrative practice. I had difficulty relating to the intellectual aspect, that is the study of the letters and numbers and what they mean. I guess I would relate more to the Hassidic Jews in their move away from intellectualism.
I did find the quest toward spirituality a common thread. The paradox of paradoxes, that we should enter into darkness to receive the light of God, captures the challenge of this life. And the hope of "healing the world" also rings true to me. I guess we are all seeking the light in our own way.
I did find the quest toward spirituality a common thread. The paradox of paradoxes, that we should enter into darkness to receive the light of God, captures the challenge of this life. And the hope of "healing the world" also rings true to me. I guess we are all seeking the light in our own way.
November 23, 2018
The author states that Kabbalah “is the way of the Heart, a path of encounter that opens the heart-space.” I found this book to be written in a cold, clinical manner that has no relation to a heart centered space. The author seems to be very pleased with himself, the many texts he has read and the arguments which he makes in the book. All in all a disappointing introduction to what is supposed to be one of the great mystical Paths available to us. All ego and no spirit. I hope that this book is not the essence of Kabbalah.
August 8, 2012
A simple, easy to read book about a complex religion. If you're curious about Kabbalah this is an excellent starter.
June 24, 2021
I was definitely over my head with this text! It proved a satisfactory overview of Kabbalah, albeit not as easy to understand for a layperson such as myself. I had to skim a couple pages due to their sheer density. The text is well researched and excellently written - but perhaps meant more for those who have some background in Judaism, Hebrew language, or Kabbalah.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews