Any help for better tagging is appreciated.

The Rambam doesn't speak about עשר ספירות so we don't really know if he actually rejected it. He does refer to צורות עליונות that a Navi meditates on, which doesn't sound like fire air and water. He spoke against just the שיעור קומה.

@HaLeiVi I'm with you - judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/40669/…

How about, for example, sod ha'ibbur (i.e. the secret wisdom behind declaring the months and years, see Hil. Kiddush HaChodesh 11:4)‌​‌​? Other examples may be found in the mishna (Chagiga 11b).

@yEz From your link "the Rambam states in the introduction (and throughout) Moreh Nevuchim that in his book he is revealing the secrets of מעשה בראשית and מעשה מרכבה as he understands them"

@HaLeiVi Are you expecting him to write out against works that haven't been written/published yet?

@DoubleAA He is not bound by what is published. The ten Sephiros, for example, was known to anyone who studied Kabbalah then. We find it in the ibn Ezra. The same goes for the four worlds, which the ibn Ezra describes in Daniel. There were Tshuvos from Rav Shrira Gaon on topics in Kabbalah.

Interestingly, when the Raavad argues on the topic of וראית את אחורי, he says of the Rambam that perhaps he didn't know the Sod. He didn't take it for granted.

@HaLeiVi Certainly he was aware of the concept of "10 Sefirot" and Sefer Yetzira (RSG, the one who bashed reincarnation, wrote a commentary to it!). But that doesn't mean he or anyone else then understood them the way the Zohar and Ari understood them. Saying God "acts with Chesed" is more of a distasteful allegory for the Rambam. Saying God has a separate part of Himself that lacks a distinct identity (whatever that means) named "The Chesed" is a whole 'nother story for the Rambam.

@DoubleAA The typical understanding of the Sephiros predates the Arizal and the Zohar by far. The Ramban, Raavad, Rashba, Rav Shrira Gaon, Rebbe Ezriel, the Ri Sagi Nahor, writings from the Gaonim all speak of it exactly the way we do. And a real understanding of the point of Sephiros, as opposed to attributing a personality to Hashem, would satisfy the Rambam very much. I don't think you presented the concept as it is meant.

@DoubleAA Reincarnation is not integral to Kabbalah, although it is something that is taught in Kabbalah. The יש"ר מקנדיא writes about Rab Saadya Gaon that his Sefer is no proof of him not knowing Kabbalah.

@HaLeiVi Writings from the Geonim? Please tell me you aren't treating claims like judaism.stackexchange.com/a/23030/759 seriously. I don't think I've ever heard of "Rebbe Ezriel" before, and the Rashba does not predate the Zohar. In any event your claims that they speak of it the exact same way as we do are unfounded given the dearth of technical material most of them wrote about it. The concept I present comes essentially from judaism.stackexchange.com/a/33725/759 I can't say if that represents "standard" kabbala or not.

@HaLeiVi I don't know who that is, but it's clear RSG thought many later kabbalists were kofrim and argued with many things later kabbalists thought were essentially ikkarei emunah. If he agreed with a few smaller points or not is a side issue, frankly. The question's use of "rejected all aspects of Kabbalah" leads to fallacy that since there is some small innocuous point they agreed upon, then everything is somehow legitimized.

@DoubleAA There are Tshuvos from Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Shrira Gaon on topics in Kabbala. Perhaps you didn't hear of Reb Ezriel but he is well known, and quoted by the Rishonim Mekubalim, such as Rabbeinu Bachya and the Rikanti among others. I didn't see the Rashba quote the Zohar when he writes on these topics but it could be he had it. The Ramban surely didn't, nor his Rebbes.

@DoubleAA On the contrary, the point he disagreed with, reincarnation, is a small non-essential idea, which he actually did not call heresy but foolishness. He said it originated from other religions, but he didn't say it makes you a Kofer. His argument against it is philosophical.

@HaLeiVi Please show me any actual geonic teshuva that deals with kabbala explicitly in any significant detail (emanations, tzimtzum etc.). They just dont exist.

@HaLeiVi IAE back to our point, the 'typical understanding' predates the Zohar's publication by ~100 years, but it doesn't predate the Rambam to any provable degree, that he would even begin to imagine it would suddenly become so popular and comment on it explicitly.

he.wikisource.org/wiki/…

@HaLeiVi Sir, if that was directed at me, I hope you realize you are 'quoting' material that first appeared 200 years after the Rambam's death. There is no evidence of any of those writings before the year 1400. Suddenly in 1400 the Sefer HaEmunot notes that a whole slew of Geonim, half of which it seems he made up since we have no record of their names anywhere, wrote all these extensive works on Kabbala most of which have not only been lost but weren't mentioned by anyone prior ever. So my previous comments stands. Find me somethingthat Geonim wrote and find me something Rambam may have seen

@DoubleAA re "from your link..." that will clearly not be helpful in addressing my question here, because I am quoting from the very same Moreh Nevochim. If the whole thing is revealing the secrets, then these secrets which he can't reveal are obviously not the topic of the book.

@DoubleAA You won't be satisfied until I dig up carbon dated manuscripts? Here I showed you what the Ramaq considered authentic as originating from Geonim. There's no question that these things weren't public as today. Is Sefer Habahir old enough?

@HaLeiVi You're thinking circularly! You can find lots of medieval attributions to earlier people. If you accept them you already accept the whole of what we call Kabbalah, and if you don't you don't. Listing them doesn't help anyone. We're trying to find an unambiguous older claim. Rishon X thought the Zohar was written by Rashbi and Rishon Y thought it was made up and Kefirah. Ok. How does that help us? Claiming there is an argument from silence from the Rambam not rejecting the Sefirot as understood by the Zohar etc. is circular as it already presumes that Kabbalah is old.

@DoubleAA and HaLeiVi at whatever point you fine fellows want to relocate this discussion to chat, my inbox would be very grateful.