Talk:Qlippoth/Archive 2

Untitled
What are the sources for this page. Until the information is properly documented, I do not think it should be merged. These are interesting ideas, but need support from somewhere. Wjbentley 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how the Tree of Life and Sephiroth are merged, might as well merge Tree of Death and Qliphoth. Might as well keep things symetrical. Nortonew 15:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge. Should be easily done, with a redirect from Tree of death to Qliphoth. meco 09:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Samael doesn't lead to the appropriate page. The correct page, one concerning the tree of death, does not seem to exist as it is not listed on the disambiguation page. I dont know enough to create one. Anon. 22:02 29 November 2005.

Does anybody have any sources for this stuff? any at all? seeing as it is so radically out of line with traditional kabbalah?


 * Egads. I have sources for the info on this page, but possibly not for each statement. I will be adding more info as soon as I can.


 * This should not be merged with the Tree of Life page, seeing as how it would make the page larger, resulting in moving the data back to this page again. The Tree of Life page should have a general summary, and this should be the main page for the material on the Qlippoth, or Adverse Tree (tree of death....who named this article?) Zos 01:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Expertise + cites needed
The whole "Judaic views" section got deleted awhile back; I've restored a shortened version because although it's not a very good section, it seems silly to have nothing about the Qlipoth in Judaism. I no longer have my Zohar, so I'm hoping someone else will step in and help clean this up. --Lumin (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Merged
I've merged this page with the Qliphoth page. I took some things out, and also added citation notes for a few things. Also, the Hermetic, Judaic, and Luciferian sections need sources if i'm not mistaken. I'll add more when I get a change. I have loads of information for this page. Zos 02:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Copying content from Talk:Qliphoth following article merger. __meco 08:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

<- copy begin ->

I have made a fully new version of the article, and believe that it settles all discussion points mentioned here before. So I removed them. Bring up new ones. :-) Denial 19:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Style question (admittedly much less earth-shattering than what has gone before): the use of capitalization is very inconsistent. I have cleaned a bit of this up, (Kabbalah/Qabalah, Judaic, Hasidic, etc.) but I'm unable to find consistent supportive evidence for qliphoth/Qliphoth and sephiroth/Sephiroth. I believe both should be capitalized, but my knowledge comes from sources that are not neutral. Is it correct to not capitalize these? Canonblack 05:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they only need to be capitalized when in the begining of a sentence, not in mid sentence unless its to link to another page. Zos 15:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic?
I found the hermetic interpretation of thjis article extremely biased and pro jewish. Many of these theories come under the misunderstanding of hermeic philosophy and are extremely pro-monotheistic. thusly, i am deleteing some of the outragious statements and hope either I feel sober and have enough time off work to improve the hermetic section myself or someone else will do it for me. I also have a problem with this whole paragraph.

'Kabbalah as interpreted in Hermeticism God is sometimes thought to shine with his pure, divine light into a chaotic darkness, Tohu va-Bohu, that did not cease to exist when God created light and order (the contrasting view in Judaic Kabbalah supports that the act of creation by God required retraction of the divine essence or tzimtzum; the notion of void or matter external to God is antithetical to Judaic Kabbalah, which leans toward panentheism). This darkness is equated to the qliphoth and also represents evil, because it is thought to be opposite or antagonistic to God's creation.'

Hermeticism originated with the corupus hermeticum amongst other documents via the first and third century a.d. and I don't think this statement reflects those theories at all. Besides which, Later hermetic theory (rosicrusians, papus, paracelsus, john dee, golden dawn, etc. etc. etc.) do not seem to reflect this view nor do i see this cited at all. If you can site this opinion. Then by all means include it. Otherwise I am deleting it. JaynusofSinope

<- copy end ->


 * I agree...whoever wrote this was confusing some issues. Just b/c the majority of the people from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn published and popularized alot of material, doesn't make it Hermetic. But non the less, I merged as much as I felt didn't conflict with this article. I was going to edit it after I woke! Zos 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

New Additions
I've added alot of info to the page. I know this has to be cleaned up, and will work to getting that done soon. Zos 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to give me a hand, would be greatly apprecitated. Zos 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Magical Correspondences]

Ok, I added some to this page. If I can find the Golden Dawn by Regardie soon, I'll add his breif writing on the matter. Other than that I can't recall who else did an interpretation on the qlippoth (besides that mike ford guy). Zos 07:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardie is not an especially useful source. He is responsible for having suppressed most of Mathers' teachings on the Qliphoth when he published the Golden Dawn rituals and lectures. And even the G.D./Crowley material is not above reproach. For example, in the list of "Seven Hells" (which appeared in pretty much this form in Cornelius Agrippa)"טיטהיון" is transliterated as "Titahion" instead of the actual Hebrew "Tit ha-Yaven" or "Mire of Mud" (which is both an allusion to the Psalms, and a punning dig on the Greeks, "Ionians").  Then again, Wikipedia is probably not the best venue to disseminate teachings on the Left-Hand Emanation. The topic is obscure - even among occultists - for a reason. 72.213.144.148 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tree of Evil
A graphic representation analogoous to the Tree of Life is shown in Bill Schnoebelen's Interview with an Ex-Vampire (Part 6, 38 min.) which, if I had any knowhow whatsoever when it comes to graphical manipulation, I would have copied down. Curiously a Google image search yields zilch that can be likened to it. If some other editor could take it from there, that would be nice. __meco 01:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Likely it is just the tree of life with the sephiroth spaces given the names of the qliphoth. Which, qliphoth are just aspects given to the sephiroth like anything else; names of heaven, archangels, choirs of angels, demon kings (Samael, etc.), qliphoth (choirs of demons; pretty much, is what they are).. or anything else; some have made it into an "inverse" tree of life, but all it is, are negative attributions of each emanation of god, nothing opposing him or some such, to do so, and believe there is a "tree of evil/death" below the one of life, is to fall into the highest Kether fallacy and mistake; to believe a duality of "Moloch" (old hebrew for King, meleck, which is the current name of god; Moloch, being an outdated one, that has come to be a demon) against "Satan". Not that god is the unity of all things but rather that he can face off against some part of his creation as if there is nothing absolute about him. etc. 4.242.174.112 (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Heidrick?
Why is Bill Heidrick used has a reference? He is not notable for any writings on the Qlipoth. Published material by Heidrick is scarce, so i dont understand why he is considered has notable has Crowley?--Redblossom (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the first exponents with candour on the subject, since the Golden Dawn and those who covered them were not scholars. For example: "English translations of a few selections from Kabbala Denudata may be found on the internet via Google and other search engines. Beware: The S. L. Macgregor Mathers book, Kabbalah Unveiled, is often represented as a translation of the entire work; but it provides only a portion of the latter part of Tom II: Pars Secunda, Tracts 1 through 3, about 250 pages in all (Zohar sections: Sepher de Zeniutha/Liber Mysterii, Idra Rabba/Synodus Areae Magna and Idra Suta/Synodus Minor). Mathers published a translation of the Latin, but he excluded the Hebrew and Aramaic text which occupies about half of each page. Thus Mathers' Kabbalah Unveiled includes about five percent of the total text of Kabbala Denudata." -- Bill Heidrick, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sabbataian spelling
Having just discovered that the Dönmeh/Sabbataian movement uses the spellings kelipot or kellipot I have created redirects from those spellings to this article and added the one with two l's to the tead of the article. __meco (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling "Kelipot" in Judaic Kabbalah section
The section on the Kelipot/Qliphoth in Judaic Kabbalah should differ in spelling the word from the Hermetic sections: Judaism uses "Kelipot/Kellipot" with a K (almost universally nowadays), not "Qliphoth/Qelipoth" with a Q. I'm changing the spelling in the Judaic Kabbalah section - "Qliphoth" is anachronistic in Judaism. (NB. other articles also keep the convention to spell the 3 traditions of Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Cabala, Hermetic Qabalah differently within the same article - Christian Kabbalah is due to be renamed Christian Cabala as its talk page proposes). April8 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Da'at?
Does Da'at have a qliphoth mirror as well or does its joint aspects of concealing and revealing make it its own mirror? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC) 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Da'at (Da'Ath) isn't a Kabalistic realm (sepiroth), it's the gateway to the higher three spheres. The gateway to the Qliphoth is traditionally Gevurah or, in modern interpretations Malkuth 90.192.50.59 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Popular Culture
The Qliphoth was referenced in Namco Bandai's game, "Tales of The Abyss". It is the name given to an abyssal void underneath the crust of the planet, soaked with miasmatic poison, excepting one godly citadel inhabitated by persons devoted to overseeing the words of a prophecy.

Pillars known individually and collectively as Sephiroth are used to hold the crust of the world above this place.

Is this acceptable to add to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.194.32.42 (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Clean up?
Is it really quite necessary for there to be such an enormous, detailed section of their use in (modern) magic? I understand that some groups are self-described as Qlipothic but, really, couldn't this be condensed for the non-specialist audience of Wikipedia? 92.24.151.79 (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is necessary

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Qliphoth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130330101301/http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380679/jewish/KABBALAH-CABALA-QABALAH.htm to http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380679/jewish/KABBALAH-CABALA-QABALAH.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is the Kenneth Grant sources?!
Considering that Kenneth Grant is one of the world's most notable writers on the Qlippoth why is there not a single mention of his writings here?

The page needs a major spring clean and re-editing to include Grant's work. Shoddy.--Redblossom (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to mention the Lurianic origins, folk tale, Talmudic, and other contributions, thence to move on to Crowley, Heidrick, Grant, Karlsson, and many others more modern. How much would be considered "original research" in such a topic? At some point it will not be sustainable.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021
The removed content is a significant part of the Qliphoth characteristics of each Sphere. Removing it is a big information lack. The content was restored by multiple people showing the relevance and yet it is getting removed without proper explanation. YouknowYuno (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It appears there is currently a consensus against inclusion. Please discuss and gain consensus before requesting an edit. Thanks ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bill Heidrick details
For the second time, I have removed a massively WP:UNDUE table of raw data sourced to Bill Heidrick (currently a redlink). It appears to be a demonology of his own invention that is not discussed in any secondary sources. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 23:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)