The Holy Shelah and The Divine Phallus.

[dybmh]

You appear to claim that the only reason a true kabbalist writes kabbalah is if he's a renegade, or else to trick whomever reads it.

Correct!

Thank God!

 

[dybmh]

Your statement appears to be self-contradicting.

Oh?

But the holy Shelah read thousands, if not millions, of pages of kabbalah

No. ^^ ASSUMPTION ^^

 

[dybmh]

he wrote the three volume work you claim to possess yourself.

Claim? I showed the pictures. Do you need my face included?

 

[dybmh]

Alain Danielou, The Phallus, p. 11, 13.

Why do you believe them?

Richard Payne Knight, A History of Phallic Worship, p. 27.

Why do you believe them?

 

[dybmh]

Let any fair-minded reader determine

You're being EXTREMELY deceptive.

[We emerge] through the coupling of [Malkhut with] Tif'eret, whose ejaculator is "Zaddiq the foundation [yesod] of the world." From [this union] the souls fly forth. For the living God is in our midst.Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit.

^^ Rabbi Horowitz NEVER wrote those words. ^^

DISGUSTING! At best it's PAGAN.

Which would be fine. Post it as your homage to PAGANISM.

But put your OWN NAME ON IT. Not the Rabbi's.

 

[John D. Brey]

Claim? I showed the pictures. Do you need my face included?

I'm curious why you have the English translation? I was able to get the books in Hebrew very easily. Why did you post an English translation made by Rabbi Munk? Didn't you claim the translation were all distortions? Why would you need the English version?



John

 

[dybmh]

I'm curious why you have the English translation?

Why? Because it's awesome! I had the opportunity. I snagged it.

You asked the same question years ago about the Hirsch Tehillim. Dude? Why wouldn't I want it?

When my Grandfather passed, on my Father's side, I used the inheritance, a large chunk of it to develop my own library. I was tired of having to ask Rabbis questions. Sound familiar ?

 

[John D. Brey]

You're being EXTREMELY deceptive.



^^ Rabbi Horowitz NEVER wrote those words. ^^

No one has claimed he wrote those words. Those are the words of the translator, Miles Krassen. You know, like how Eliyahu Munk is the translator of your version of the text. Why don't you just look and see how Eliyahu Munk translated the same text? I gave you a link to the exact place it's found in message #4. Why don't you share with all of us the difference between Munk's translation, and Krassen's.

I'd do it myself. But I'd have to run down the the university library to do it since I can't get the copy of the English text you so prize.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why? Because it's awesome! I had the opportunity. I snagged it.

. . . But it's an English translation created just for fools like me. You should've got the Hebrew edition. It's always available. How does your version translate the word Krassen translated "ejaculator"?



John

 

[dybmh]

Didn't you claim the translation were all distortions?

No. It's not kabalah, John! You don't even know what kabalah is.

 

[dybmh]

No one has claimed he wrote those words.

^^ BS ^^

Strike 1. You have 2 more. Then I'm gone.

 

[dybmh]

Those are the words of the translator, Miles Krassen.

Then you need to put HIS NAME ON IT!!!!!

Watch and learn:

"[We emerge] through the coupling of [Malkhut with] Tif'eret, whose ejaculator is "Zaddiq the foundation [yesod] of the world." From [this union] the souls fly forth. For the living God is in our midst." - Miles Krassen

 

[dybmh]

You know, like how Eliyahu Munk is the translator of your version of the text.

I'm not the one misrepresenting, deceiving people. Defaming Rabbis.

John you have been doing this for years. YEARS!!!

I have caught you, called you on it. You never listen, you never change. And. Truth be told, you seem to get a sick twisted pleasure from putting SEXUAL WORDS IN THE MOUTH OF RABBIS.

Shame on you!

 

[dybmh]

I gave you a link to the exact place it's found in message #4.

Exact place? Excellent.

If you knew the exact place you should have put that in the post. But you never do. Never. You make it as difficult as possible for people to read how WRONG you are.

And, you have to do it intentionally. Skipping over, skipping over the actual conclusions the Rabbi is making so that you can gratify yourself at OUR expense.

Why don't you share with all of us the difference between Munk's translation, and Krassen's.

Uh, because I'm sick of your games John. Sick of it. I've told you. I'm ready to flush your posts into the ether.

 

[dybmh]

How does your version translate the word Krassen translated "ejaculator"?

If you give me more details, and convince me that you have actually had a change in heart, maybe I'll look that up.

How about this?

I gave you a link to the exact place

Prove it. Copy, paste, and post the hebrew, from the "exact place" where the quote from Krassen originates.

OR

Admit your were lying exaggerating, to the extreme, and will not admit that unless your nose is rubbed in your own excremement.

 

[Glaurung]

@dybmh Perhaps you should just leave the OP in his bizarre fixations. It's not as if anyone pays attention to his threads.

 

[John D. Brey]

Prove it. Copy, paste, and post the hebrew, from the "exact place" where the quote from Krassen originates.

OR

Admit your were lying exaggerating, to the extreme, and will not admit that unless your nose is rubbed in your own excremement.

This is cut and pasted from message #17:

Sefaria doesn't yet have this section of Shney Luchot Habrit translated into English. And since I don't yet posses Rabbi Eliyahu Munk's English translation (though I'm working on it), I got the translation out of Miles Krassen's book on the first section of Shney Luchot Habrit called The Generations of Adam that's in the Classics of Western Spirituality Collection.​

​

Fwiw, Krassen's book doesn't have the Hebrew text of the statement such that I did refer to Sefaria's Hebrew of the text in order to attempt to see why Krassen translated "ejaculator" since that's a pretty ballsy, so to say, translation. I doubt that anyone but you would want to exegete the Hebrew such that I didn't include a link till now. Even still, being you admit I love this stuff, you'll have to touch, press on, or click, my ballsy if you want to get to the Hebrew text.​

It seems pretty clear that my blue balls, or rather ballsy, is a link (I even pointed out that you have to touch it or click on it)? More than that, I gave the Hebrew that was translated "ejaculator" in message #4 which I'll paste below. Oh btw, at the link, the phrase is on the 18th and 19th line if I counted right:

As a footnote (since I can imagine certain readers getting in a hissy fit over the translation "ejaculator"), the Hebrew including the word translated "ejaculator" is המריק שלו צדי"ק יסוד, which, in a more literal sense, could be translated "the pouring-out (or flowing out) of righteous yesod." -----But since "yesod" is understood to be the genital organ of Adam Kadmon (see image above), the Hebrew for this "pouring or flowing out" is, legitimately related to "ejaculation." Furthermore, Miles Krassen (the translator) no doubt has other significant reasons for using that peculiar translation of this text since the kabbalists were wont to play with Hebrew words and letters in a manner that dumbfounds the dumber or less exegetically obsessed kabbalists.​

​

Case in point. The word translated "pour, or flow, out" (as in "ejaculate") is peculiar. It appears to be the more general word for "pouring" or "flowing out" המר with a non-Hebrew suffix יק? Furthermore, in the holy Shelah's actual text, the word for the righteous one, i.e., tzaddic צדיק, has a gershayim (") after the yod and before the quf צדו"ק. If Rabbi Horowitz is playing with the letters of this important, quasi-sexual statement, then what appears to be a suffix, יק (in the word המריק) is more likely a geresh and a quf, rather than a yod and a quf, so that Horowitz is playing with the quf ק in tzaddic צדיק by placing a geresh before a quf in המר–יק, in order to toy with what's likely a Yiddish play on the word for "flowing out" used to speak in jest, in Yiddish terms, of semen?​

​

Since the letter quf symbolizes "holy" or "holiness," the intense emphasis implied by the gershayim before the quf (in "tzaddic"), and the geresh before the quf (in "flowing out"), implies that the holy Shelah may be thinking of, writing concerning, something of the utmost importance to him, since in the Shelah's theology it's paradoxical in the extreme, i.e., holy semen, from a divine phallus.​

So you see, in fairness to . . . well . . . me, I really was pretty forthcoming about all this earlier in the thread. I posted the actual Hebrew phrase that included "ejaculator" המריק שלו צדי"ק יסוד, and I noted that the word translated "ejaculator" המריק appears to be strange enough in itself to justify the strange translation.



John

 

[dybmh]

This is cut and pasted from message 317:

Sefaria doesn't yet have this section of Shney Luchot Habrit translated into English. And since I don't yet posses Rabbi Eliyahu Munk's English translation (though I'm working on it), I got the translation out of Miles Krassen's book on the first section of Shney Luchot Habrit called The Generations of Adam that's in the Classics of Western Spirituality Collection.​

​

Fwiw, Krassen's book doesn't have the Hebrew text of the statement such that I did refer to Sefaria's Hebrew of the text in order to attempt to see why Krassen translated "ejaculator" since that's a pretty ballsy, so to say, translation. I doubt that anyone but you would want to exegete the Hebrew such that I didn't include a link till now. Even still, being you admit I love this stuff, you'll have to touch, press on, or click, my ballsy if you want to get to the Hebrew text.​

It seems pretty clear that my blue balls, or rather ballsy, is a link (I even pointed out that you have to touch it or click on it)? More than that, I gave the Hebrew that was translated "ejaculator" in message #4 which I'll paste below. Oh btw, at the link, the phrase is on the 18th and 19th line if I counted right:

As a footnote (since I can imagine certain readers getting in a hissy fit over the translation "ejaculator"), the Hebrew including the word translated "ejaculator" is המריק שלו צדי"ק יסוד, which, in a more literal sense, could be translated "the pouring-out (or flowing out) of righteous yesod." -----But since "yesod" is understood to be the genital organ of Adam Kadmon (see image above), the Hebrew for this "pouring or flowing out" is, legitimately related to "ejaculation." Furthermore, Miles Krassen (the translator) no doubt has other significant reasons for using that peculiar translation of this text since the kabbalists were wont to play with Hebrew words and letters in a manner that dumbfounds the dumber or less exegetically obsessed kabbalists.​

​

Case in point. The word translated "pour, or flow, out" (as in "ejaculate") is peculiar. It appears to be the more general word for "pouring" or "flowing out" המר with a non-Hebrew suffix יק? Furthermore, in the holy Shelah's actual text, the word for the righteous one, i.e., tzaddic צדיק, has a gershayim (") after the yod and before the quf צדו"ק. If Rabbi Horowitz is playing with the letters of this important, quasi-sexual statement, then what appears to be a suffix, יק (in the word המריק) is more likely a geresh and a quf, rather than a yod and a quf, so that Horowitz is playing with the quf ק in tzaddic צדיק by placing a geresh before a quf in המר–יק, in order to toy with what's likely a Yiddish play on the word for "flowing out" used to speak in jest, in Yiddish terms, of semen?​

​

Since the letter quf symbolizes "holy" or "holiness," the intense emphasis implied by the gershayim before the quf (in "tzaddic"), and the geresh before the quf (in "flowing out"), implies that the holy Shelah may be thinking of, writing concerning, something of the utmost importance to him, since in the Shelah's theology it's paradoxical in the extreme, i.e., holy semen, from a divine phallus.​

So you see, in fairness to . . . well . . . me, I really was pretty forthcoming about all this earlier in the thread. I posted the actual Hebrew phrase that included "ejaculator" המריק שלו צדי"ק יסוד, and I noted that the word translated "ejaculator" המריק appears to be strange enough in itself to justify the strange translation.



John

Strike two:

Copy, paste, and post the hebrew, from the "exact place" where the quote from Krassen originates.

Prove that you actually gave me the "exact place".

What you listed above is a mess. I'm done wading through your garbage.

 

[John D. Brey]

@dybmh Perhaps you should just leave the OP in his bizarre fixations. It's not as if anyone pays attention to his threads.

Your statement lends itself to the correctness of @dybmh pointing out that true kabbalism, and kabbalists, hide glorious truths by means of the manner and topic of the dialogue and discussion where these profound truths are discussed, or else the writing where they're examined. They do so such that persons not in a position to digest these profound truths can't cut through מילה or swallow מציצה the truths without literally getting disgusted with the discussion; your statement above being like a lab rat or frog that can be dissected to authenticate the usefulness of the fore-going, so to say. The easiest way to hide profound spiritual truths is to hide them in a place the majority of humanity think of as the opposite of spiritual: hide them in what the hoi polloi consider profane or pornographic:

By worshiping the lingam one is not deifying a physical organ, but simply recognizing a form that is eternal and divine manifested in the microcosm. The human organ is the image of the divine emblem, the eternal and causal form of the lingam, present in all things. . . it is not the phallus in itself which is revered but that for which it is the sign, the progenitor, the cosmic individual.

​

​

Alain Danielou, The Phallus, p. 11, 13.​

​

Even the form itself, under which the god was represented, appear to them a mockery of all piety and devotion, and more fit to be placed in a brothel than a temple. But the forms and ceremonies of a religion are not always to be understood in their direct and obvious sense; but are to be considered as symbolical representations of some hidden meaning, which may be extremely wise and just, though the symbols themselves, to those who know not their true signification, may appear in the highest degree absurd and extravagant.​

​

Richard Payne Knight, A History of Phallic Worship, p. 27.​

Acknowledging all of this as the case, the two greatest students (not necessarily practitioners) of Jewish kabbalah of the last century, Gershom Scholem, and Eliot R. Wolfson, acknowledge the importance of the phallus and sexual imagery in the way the kabbalists discuss their most important truths:

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik [the Righteous One]. In terms of mirroring the structure of Adam Kadmon in the human body, the ninth Sefirah not only corresponds to the phallus; it is also, by reason of this allocation, the site of the circumcision, the sign of the Covenant.​

​

Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the God-head, p. 106.​

​

As I have suggested, moreover, a distinctive feature of the ocularcentrism in medieval Jewish mysticism is phallocentrism. . . The development of Jewish mysticism, therefore, can be seen as the move from an implicit to an explicit phallocentrism. . . That is, common to the visionary accounts in the different mystical sources I examined in this work ---the writings of the Hekhalot mystics, German Pietists, and theosophic kabbalists---is the notion that the object of the mystical vision is the male deity and, more specifically, the phallus.​

​

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, p. 395.​

The way the kabbalists hide their great examination from the eyes and ears of those who have no place engaging these truths is by simply using terms to discuss these sacred truths that persons who aren't truly interested, or haven't the necessary preparation, consider little more than "bizarre fixation," pornographic silliness of little worth.

As you've clearly and accurately pointed out, no one here bothers with these threads. They're just bizarre fixations. And yet over 15,000 pages of this bizarre fixation has germinated right here in this forum such that though its almost completely ignored here, @dybmh being the rare exception, these 15,000 plus pages have been ejaculated into hundreds of essays posted to Academia.edu where they're not just not ignored, quite to the contrary, these essays, totally ignored here, have been sought out and are in the top 1% concerning readership, of everything posted in Academia.edu since the day, some years ago, the ejaculation aroused here, started landing there.



John

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh Perhaps you should just leave the OP in his bizarre fixations. It's not as if anyone pays attention to his threads.

Agreed.

However, I will be leaving warnings on his future threads. For my own peace of mind.