Because of the fact that young people -when they get interested in Torah also get interested in Kabalah is not a surprise. They do first need to get the idea that it is kosher. If not for that crucial step, even the most secular Jew would reject the idea of having anything to do with it.
(1) To me the Ari seems important. But a lot of the Dark Side got mixed into the general books of Kabalah especially after the Baal Shem Tov. Not that this as the fault of the Baal Shem Tov, but rather the fact that the basic approach of the Shatz got into all mystic books after the 1700's.
The focus of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) became the possession of religious teachers, and from there it was easy to subvert the rest of the Jewish people.
(2) Without the Kabala,h the Torah looks to modern eyes rather empty of significance. So it is natural to look for what is going on under the surface. This is the same as when you read Chaucer, you look for the deeper meanings. But in Kabalah people expect they will find the feeling and knowledge of numinous value.
(3) My position on this is that the Zohar is not from R Shimon ben Yochai. But that does not invalidate it. It was common for souls of people to reveal things to the living as we see with Joan of Arc and many others.
(4) I do think the Ari [Isaac Luria] is important but almost nothing that was written in Kabalah after him. The only two schools of thought after the Ari that I consider kosher are Yaakov Abuchatzeira and Shalom Sharabi.
(5) Besides those to schools of though I think everything else is basically from the Dark Side.
[Clearly Yaakov Avichatzaira and Bava Sali held very highly of the Ari and the Remak. The trouble is clearly not from them but from later demonic teachers that got to be commonly accepted as tzadikim who were clearly not so.]
Th danger is also that people that learn kabalah think they have Ruach Hakodesh and or the ability to do miracles. They imagine anything they think come from the realm of holiness.
(6) My own position you have to realize comes from a balance of a lot of things. I really liked the Eitz Chaim of the Arizal which I learned in the Mir Yeshiva in NY [between sessions] before I went to Israel, and in Israel I learned zero Kabalah, but visited the grave of the Arizal. [I mean in NY the basic thing was to learn Talmud and so I learned the Ari only between sessions--I think. I might have done some during some sessions.] In any case, there was an opening of Divine Light on me for the years I was there before I pushed it away. SoI do have a great deal of confidence in the Ari himself that learning him does prepare the soul for a higher kind of light--if done for the intention of learning Torah. If it is done for the intention of getting spiritual powers it definitely causes one to fall into the Dark Side. I also look at the Ari from the standpoint of Kant that there is a an area of value that reason can not know. The realm of the dinge any sich.
(1) To me the Ari seems important. But a lot of the Dark Side got mixed into the general books of Kabalah especially after the Baal Shem Tov. Not that this as the fault of the Baal Shem Tov, but rather the fact that the basic approach of the Shatz got into all mystic books after the 1700's.
The focus of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) became the possession of religious teachers, and from there it was easy to subvert the rest of the Jewish people.
(2) Without the Kabala,h the Torah looks to modern eyes rather empty of significance. So it is natural to look for what is going on under the surface. This is the same as when you read Chaucer, you look for the deeper meanings. But in Kabalah people expect they will find the feeling and knowledge of numinous value.
(3) My position on this is that the Zohar is not from R Shimon ben Yochai. But that does not invalidate it. It was common for souls of people to reveal things to the living as we see with Joan of Arc and many others.
(4) I do think the Ari [Isaac Luria] is important but almost nothing that was written in Kabalah after him. The only two schools of thought after the Ari that I consider kosher are Yaakov Abuchatzeira and Shalom Sharabi.
(5) Besides those to schools of though I think everything else is basically from the Dark Side.
[Clearly Yaakov Avichatzaira and Bava Sali held very highly of the Ari and the Remak. The trouble is clearly not from them but from later demonic teachers that got to be commonly accepted as tzadikim who were clearly not so.]
Th danger is also that people that learn kabalah think they have Ruach Hakodesh and or the ability to do miracles. They imagine anything they think come from the realm of holiness.
(6) My own position you have to realize comes from a balance of a lot of things. I really liked the Eitz Chaim of the Arizal which I learned in the Mir Yeshiva in NY [between sessions] before I went to Israel, and in Israel I learned zero Kabalah, but visited the grave of the Arizal. [I mean in NY the basic thing was to learn Talmud and so I learned the Ari only between sessions--I think. I might have done some during some sessions.] In any case, there was an opening of Divine Light on me for the years I was there before I pushed it away. SoI do have a great deal of confidence in the Ari himself that learning him does prepare the soul for a higher kind of light--if done for the intention of learning Torah. If it is done for the intention of getting spiritual powers it definitely causes one to fall into the Dark Side. I also look at the Ari from the standpoint of Kant that there is a an area of value that reason can not know. The realm of the dinge any sich.
