Talk:Da'at

Shouldn't the link on "The Abyss" be removed? When you are reading an article on the Kabbalah and click a link that says "The Abyss" it is a bit jarring to be taken to a page that talks about the movie The Abyss.

Who is the author? Please email me at adamatova@gmail.com

Todah rabba

=Inconsistent Spelling=

Da'at - Daat

Sephirot - Sefirot

Stick to one each please. 70.79.119.33 (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Daat-sagitti, keter (a giant red planet near the center of the milkyway and origin of the chakra aka sound)-tau, sun/neptune and heimdaarl (origin of the holy spirit)-leo, yesod (orange chakra)/asgard-aquarius, neztah or planet of sky is virgo, hokmah (now pluto)-pisces, jotunheim (now jupiter)-capricorn along with saturn, earth/malkuth-gemini, gevurah as mars is aries, binah as the moon is cancer, libra is sirius/venus aka chesed as well. Hod is scorpio in a conflict taken into context with comic book literature, is infact true of heaven and hell..see also New Genesis and Apokolips. Uranus and neptune are supposedly aries and are transmutated from aquarius and leo. Spirits of the planets in both the sefir and eddas

=New Cleanup Tag= I just tagged this article for personal reflection style editing, as coming upon it and knowing nothing of metaphysics or pretext the entire opening section is senseless, particularly the final paragraph of the opening. ("The Divine Light is always shining, but not all humans can see it. The concealment or revelation of the Divine Light shining through Daat does not actually happen in Daat itself. It only seems that way from the human perspective within Malkuth. The perception of change can only occur in Malkuth" And so on.) I will research this and compose it myself when I have some time if nobody else wants to tackle it. -L 24.21.68.221 (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

=Merge= I totally agree that this page should be merged with Daath (Kabbalah) Morgan Leigh 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support I am in favor of the merge. Daath is obviously a very sparse article and would benefit from the merge and redirect.--Rosicrucian 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment At this point I think we could safely do WP:Bold.--Rosicrucian 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In fact, I just merged it. It's been up for discussion since April.--Rosicrucian 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Da'at External link
[http://innerorg. Inner.org about Kabbalah] when clicked on you come to a page that currently tells you about food restrictions. When one outs Daath into their search it comes up with nothing:( When one puts in Da'at one gets a Google search page that lists articles that appear to be also on their site.

I suggest On the Tree of Life, What Is "Daath"?, granted I wrote it so I guess it would be inappropriate for me to list it, but at least it directly goes to a page on the subject.

Kythera 15:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Kythera

disclaimer
The disclaimer at the top of this page bothers me. It states: "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (November 2009).

It bothers me for a number of reasons. For one thing, I'm not finding this flag on any other articles of this nature, concerning the individual sephirot. I've never encountered it on ANY wikipedia article for that matter, and I've read a fair share. For another, the author(s) seem/s quite intelligent and well-versed in the subject matter. The article is informative though perhaps lacking citations, and so is that the problem? Maybe that's all it is, in which case the edits pointing to that are valid. But this over-arching qualification detracts from the information presented. It makes it seem somehow "less than" other wiki articles, some of which may be lacking in content and citations but for whatever reason don't feature this glaring disclaimer. I don't know who the author or authors is or are, but I found their article to be quite helpful. Helpful enough that I was moved to write in on their behalf and ask that this disclaimer be reexamined, and hopefully removed. To a reading audience, it reads like a grudge match, and that's out of place in a scholarly website that we all rely on for "factual" information. Thank you.