Talk:Tree of life

This article puts toghether reberberances of the druidical concept of Tree of Life as it reaches newly invented religions. While missing to cover the actual origin of the concept in European Druidism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.149.136.113 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

As with all world religions, philosophies, and mythologies, a non-biased multi-faceted, and neutral approach must be taken when discussing a topic of 'faith'. This article is purely based on congecture, fiction, and should be removed or at least a placeholder set in it's place until a more knowledgeable article can be produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prxsii2010 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to move Darwin's usage of tree of life back up. I like to put things in chronological order sometimes, and I daresay Darwin got his usage from the Biblical usages. But I do not intend to demean Darwin or give extra credence to the Bible, so if anyone reverts I won't protest. --Ed Poor

I believe that through the middle ages the tree of life arbor vitae had mystical and symbolic connections with the cross. Jung worked a lot in this area, and I suppose at some point when I'm not working on so many different things at once I could pull down my references and see what I can find. For now, since my knowledge is on shaky ground, I'll confine my remarks to the talk page. Eclecticology 09:41 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

Eclecticology, keep in mind that this is a disambigulation page. I'm pretty new to wikipedia, but I get the impression that these pages are sort of clarifications and re-directs. You addition sounds most interesting, a bit about Jungs archetypes would be great on a Tree of Life page, I might even add some stuff from Joseph Campell on that motiff if you do that, but perhaps it should be on a different page than this one? Unless I am mistaken, and a largish article/entry can also serve the disambigulation purpose. Nygdan 1-25-06

I recommend changing the name of this article. There is another article called Tree of Life (capital L), and it is confusing to have two articles with the same name. If this is a disambiguation page, perhaps it could be renamed to Tree of Life (disamibuation) or something like that? Alternatively, the other article could be renamed Tree of Life (Christianity).

Why are they seperate? Why not just combine the two and say Judo-Christian or something? Jaxad0127 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I simply merged them together. Christianity is a form of Hebraic monotheism. :bloodofox: 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is much too general - sure Christianity stems from Judaism, but their concepts of the 'tree of life' are very separate. This article is much too problematic - see my note at the end of this discussion page. --129.59.43.190 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I may be terribly mistake , but I do believe Aristotle promulgated a version of the "tree of life", whereby all organisms "strived" to move from "lower" to "higher". Although undoubtedly rooted in earlier versions, I think Aristotle's version was used as a basis for later rejection of Darwinian evolutionary theories. Please correct me if I'm in error. Esseh 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually the tree of life pictured on this page from the move "The Fountain" does not acutally represent the "tree of life" in that scene it represents the male characters dying wife whom he is trying to save from a brain tumor.

That is just an interpretation. I would disagree - it is the Tree, the same one from the Mayan scenes, and/or the one discovered in the contemporary scenes. The Yeti 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

These may all be considered similar, but they all emerge from different contexts. Instead of doing a disservice to each individual "Tree of Life" I suggest that we split up this article into individual articles about each one. It is a bit misinformed to generalize them all as "trees of life" especially when, especially in the case of the Assyrian one, they are not even called trees of life. --129.59.43.190 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that this is problematic, this page is basically just a directory to other articles that already exist on the trees you specifically refer to. It's essentially an extended, detailed disambiguation page with explanations. I've since reworded the introduction a bit. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

To split it up would lead to many stub pages, most with insufficient information to last. Most of the headings on this page at least owe their origins to the religious/mythological tree of life concept (see also the Eden in the East entry under 'Modern Interpretations' as to a possible connection between them). The Yeti (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

To add, where would the entries with insufficient detail to form their own pages go ?? Or is it proposed just to delete them [and the useful information contained within them] into oblivion, just so Wikipedia can have a good tidying-up exercise and look a bit better (from someone else's unNPOV) ?? A sort of cutting off your nose to spite your face argument.

When I originally came to this page a yearish back, I did so specifically because I was interested in the tree of life concept, and how it was a seemingly universal concept amongst many different cultures. I wished to see other culture's interpretations, and be able to compare them and see the history of the concept. I also believe many other viewers of the page may wish to do the same, even if it isn't laced with detailed academic expertise speak. To do away with entries would seriously diminish, not only the article, but the whole point of Wikipedia. And to quote one of the tenets of Wikipedia "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them." The Yeti (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it is useful to keep the various references, because the tree of life is an almost ubiquitous symbol among various cultures and religions. It deserves more treatment, not less. Mircea Eliade is one scholar who noted how religious symbols recur in different times and places, derived from the natural world and given meaning by different cultures.--Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone should mention Tale's of Symphonia's Giant Kharlan tree which is a tree of life as well as the character Yggdrasil whose name is based on the tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.137.50 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Under which heading of the "Modern Use" heading would a video game reference go? Fiction? And yes, I know that Warcraft is already on there, but that's more of the lore side of it, where as the addition I was about to make (the "Tree of Light" shapesift form for the druid class) is a more mechanical reference (grants bonus healing) than a fiction/lore/universe/etc. reference. Also, I was wondering if such a detail merits a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrodgers (talk • contribs) 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You would just mention the name of the game, Wiki link it (if one exists) and mention that the name of a ?ship ?character in the game's universe is called a tree of life. Anything further would be over detail - if there was more, consider creating its own page for the ?ship and/or game. The Yeti (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the game MythWar by Unigium there's an area called Tree of Life 87.212.16.222 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would like to delete the section if it doesn't meet the guidelines set by WP:N, WP:PURPLIST and WP:IPC. While it is formatted nicely and has a bit more than what User:The Yeti wants, I think it should either have stronger justification for inclusion or be deleted to make it a more concise article. --User:OrbitOne 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Modern interpretations

• The Tree of Life appears in the Book of Mormon in a revelation to Lehi (see 1 Nephi 8:10-12). It is symbolic of the love of God (see 1 Nephi 11:21-23), and sometimes understood as salvation and post-mortal existence.
• The Tree of Life sometimes refers to Jesus, as he died on a cross (often symbolically referred to as a tree in Christian imagery) and is understood to bring new life through the Resurrection.
• In Dictionaire Mytho-Hermetique (Paris, 1737), Antoine-Joseph Pernety, a famous alchemist, identified the Tree of Life with the Elixir of Life and the Philosopher's Stone.
• In Eden in the East (1998), Stephen Oppenheimer suggests that a tree-worshiping culture arose in Indonesia and was diffused by the so-called "Younger Dryas" event of c8000 BCE, when the sea-level rose. This culture reached China (Szechuan), then India and the Middle East. Finally the Finno-Ugaritic strand of this diffusion spread through Russia to Finland where the Norse myth of Yggdrasil took root.

Who is that ever said: " * The Tree of Life sometimes refers to Jesus, as he died on a cross (often symbolically referred to as a tree in Christian imagery) and is understood to bring new life through the Resurrection."???

This sounds absolutely silly! Can anyone point to any examples of such a reference or interpretation other than this website??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.196.192 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

There has been a significant rearrangement of this page from the previous 'cultural' groupings that it had, to one based on geographical and historical groupings. In my opinion this is to the detriment of the page, as it makes it look more like nonsense. Cultural groupings of the tree of life makes more sense and allows easy comparison between different interpretations. Splitting, in particular, the hewbrewic entries across multiple sections (even 'modern interpretations'!) is confusing, and renders the page pointless and meaningless. I am therefore reverting this page, unless a cohesive argument can be made for otherwise. (I have conserved into the text the minor other changes that were later made).

Further, if the user who made the changes is also proposing the article be split, it is better to leave the article as was, so the other users can make their own decision. Not rearrange it to support their view, then propose splitting, which is sort of like biasing the argument before anyone else can think about it.

And further still, the user/admin proposing the splitting has not made any arguments on this page to support their reasoning in support of a split. I hope therefore that nothing will happen until credible arguments and discussions over a reasonable time period are allowed to be made. The Yeti (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

My vote. split the page into cultural definitions. Otherwise it will seem like confused gibberish.Dragonnas (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image Image:Fountain tree of life.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

In Europe and the USA the tree of life is a popular tattoo when depicted in a Celtic style. Do the Ancient Celts need a mention in this article too?

It's mentioned in the introduction of this article that humans were barred from entry to the Garden of Eden by the time the Tree of Life and\or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was spoken of in Genesis. This is not true. Both tree's are mentioned first in Gen. chp 2:9. Man was barred from it in chp 3:24. Discussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.185.246 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. (NASB)

I view this as something that is often confused. They are possibly the same tree, but there is a time when it is allowed to eat the fruit and a time when it is not. Clearly the time when it is allowed is after the judgment and during the feast. Prior to that, I believe it to be a sin. I am highly knowledgeable on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.208.157 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Kroni is the first life; It was fragmented into six and each fragment took birth and went extinct one after the another until all the fragments were destroyed; See this chart - 61.3.157.202 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The tree that is featured in Darksiders is the tree of knowledge. The tree of life is portrayed in Darksiders II. Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought this should also reference Yggdrasil from Nordic Legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil

I'm not quite knowledgable enough on the subject to edit it myself. VK2AFL (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could someone please check if the two external links are related to the content of this page? Wiki-uk (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The page for the church of the tree of life redirects here, but this page contains no information on the church.2600:1005:B12C:7024:8C95:A8CA:180E:FD93 (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tree of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131207041420/http://kmt.himalayaninstitute.org/pointsarchive.asp?dt=1/12/2001 to http://kmt.himalayaninstitute.org/pointsarchive.asp?dt=1/12/2001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be instances of both in this article but no clear source that unifies them as one concept. I removed buddha's bodhi tree since I've only eer known it as a "tree of knowledge" and not a "tree of life"....the overall list seems to be a list of "theological trees" not a proper list of "trees of life" as defined by a good secondary source. Maneesh (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reference 11 has a dead link. Here's the correct URL - https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/fruit-of-the-tree-of-life-albert-the-great/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where is the location of the tree of life 105.112.164.129 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This topic is nicely worded but unclear and conflates Lurianic Qabbalah with Hermetic Qabbalah. The two branches share the shape of the glyph but not much else as far as i understand it. While Lurianic Qabbalah is a mystical interpretation of the Torah and focuses on the Word of God with a special emphasis on the original Hebrew to understand and prove (biblically) the nature of the universe, Hermetic Qabbalah seems to have taken some of the conclusions of Lurianic Qabbalah out of context and presented them as a pathway to personal development and occult power. They are closely related so should stay as one artivle but a clearer distinction should be made. I would write it myself but i'm not sure i can write as well as the original author of that article! Tysonisms (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply