The Tree of Life

[CCoburn]

You can hypothesize that everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be, exists in some form now as we speak, and we are just at some arbitrary location within this infinite sea of eternity - some terms here are contradictory.

Supposing time-travel is possible, then that would mean the past and future does in fact exist right now at this moment, and even if this were true, it only accounts for a single universe(a single timeline) within the infinite sea(or chain) of universes, and with multiverse theories aside, you cannot traverse the timelines from one universe to the next, or the one before, because only one universe(or timeline) can physically exist at any given time.

Blackboard Analogy : One Day Equals One Universe (or Timeline)

Take a blackboard for example as one analogy. One day things are written or drawn as creations on it; the next day they are erased and new things are written or drawn.

What can be said of the things that are erased, and of the things yet to be drawn?

You could say that the things that have been erased are no longer in existence, and that the things that have yet to be written have yet to exist, or, you could say that the things that have been erased still exist in the past, and the things yet to be written are known via some deterministic power and that they also exist.

On the other hand, one might say that the only thing that exists in actuality is the present(the moment), and the only thing that lends credence to the existence of past and future events(even transcending universes) is our ability to conceptualize these events.

One might even posit that a higher power is aware the totality of the past, present, and future contents of the blackboard, but that it just hasn't played out yet.

The infinities involved here are quite ineffable though when it comes to eternity and hypothesizing that all events pertinent to an eternal construct can be known or exist in some way when we are conceptualizing that without beginning or end.

[Ziran]

You can hypothesize that everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be, exists in some form now as we speak, and we are just at some arbitrary location within this infinite sea of eternity - some terms here are contradictory.

I'm not seeing the contradiction, but I think there is an unfounded assumption.

"... we are just at some arbitrary location ... "

"... we are just at some arbitrary location ... "

"just" aka "only" is the assumption.

Supposing time-travel is possible, then that would mean the past and future does in fact exist right now at this moment, and even if this were true, it only accounts for a single universe(a single timeline) within the infinite sea(or chain) of universes, and with multiverse theories aside, you cannot traverse the timelines from one universe to the next, or the one before, because only one universe(or timeline) can physically exist at any given time.

why assume that "travel" is limited to "physical"? if not then, it is no longer limited to the single time-line. many-worlds can be explored once this limitation is ... abandoned.

Blackboard Analogy : One Day Equals One Universe (or Timeline)

Take a blackboard for example as one analogy. One day things are written or drawn as creations on it; the next day they are erased and new things are written or drawn.

What can be said of the things that are erased, and of the things yet to be drawn?

That's one model, but not the only coherent model.

I prefer a different analogy where nothing is erased. Each opportunity spawns a new timeline. All of the timelines collectively are many-worlds. Just as there are many-worlds, there are many versions of me. When I make a choice, I am choosing which timeline is "here-and-now". This resolves the conflict between free-will and determinism. Both are happening simultaneously from the infinite perspective. The conflict is produced when the multiple versions of "me" are neglected, and the multiple timelines are neglected, and it is assumed that a choice / opportunity cannot be "written" into the story along with the multiple outcomes.

Choose Your Own Adventure #1 - 1979 - The Cave of Time

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_ ... _Adventure

^^ Many-Worlds Exploration ^^ .jpg (34.24 KiB) Viewed 39539 times

On the other hand, one might say that the only thing that exists in actuality is the present(the moment), and the only thing that lends credence to the existence of past and future events(even transcending universes) is our ability to conceptualize these events.

The Baal-Shem-Tov taught, "you are where your mind is". If so, perspective is key.

Forest-and-Tree, Nation-and-Citizen, Law-and-Exception, General-and-Particular... Zooming-out-And-Zooming-in....

Zooming-out-And-Zooming-in... like Ezekiel's vision of the divine chariot.

Seeing both sides simultaneously is like dancing with two different partners. It feels wierd and it's not easy to do. The inclination is to turn away from one, and face the other, and then flip back. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's required in order to learn to dance at all. That's why the concepts are broken out into a sequence, seperated in space and time. But rapidly fliipping back and forth is what produces the inner-conflict / contradiction / discord / cognitive dissonance. Once they are uniited annd considered from both perspectives simultaneously, the conflict is resloved. Not into oblivion; the opposing perspectives are **harmonized**. They are united in tension, like a stringed instrument, like an atomic bond.

Dancing with one partner whose rhythm is classic 2/4, ( like a marching band, like Abba ) and simultaneously dancing with an other whose rhythm is 5/4, ( the Mission Impossible theme song, Rush's Jacob's Ladder ), is in a small way, like considering the infinite while living in a finite existence. It CAN be done, and It CAN be fun. First one practices dancing with Abba ( a marching band, the finite perspective ), then, hopefully, they advance to Rush. Then through mutual understanding, one can dance with both simultaneously without stepping on anyone's toes.

One might even posit that a higher power is aware the totality of the past, present, and future contents of the blackboard, but that it just hasn't played out yet.

Once the book has been composed the author is aware of the contents in its entirety. The author has also, likely, composed various other renditions of the story. The finite author would not have completed these alternate story-lines. However, an author which is infinite would complete all the possible story-lines as a consequence of conceiving just one.

If I construct a simple story about a bird named pat who falls from its nest. I have also constructed a host of other stories where pat is { ... not a dog, not a cat, not a tree, not a shrub, not a child, not a martian, etc.... }. I have also contructed a story where the bird is named: { ... not les, not ray, not jo, ... }. I also created a story where pat does: { ... not stay in the nest, not go to college, not learn to fly ... }.

These negations happen automatically in the human mind when contructing a story, and it is somewhat beyond awareness. But it's still happening.

From the infinite perspective, all of these story-lines are established concurrrently and instantaneously. The characters, plot, choices, conflicts, resolutions all vary, but are not entirely disjointed. From the finite perspective they are conceptualized as negations. But from the infintie perspective, they are just alternate stories, spin-offs, what-ifs, and cross-overs which are no less real than any of the others. However, there will be key "concepts" of great significance which are repeated. With in each story, they are repeated. Among all the varying story-lines, in the many worlds, below and above... these are archetypes, "angels", "demons", "gods", "heroes", "villians", etc...

The infinities involved here are quite ineffable though when it comes to eternity and hypothesizing that all events pertinent to an eternal construct can be known or exist in some way when we are conceptualizing that without beginning or end.

Agreed. If the concepts are approached and respected, that's different than "knowing" them intimately. Knowing is a version of intimacy. They can be understood, but not known. Understanding, imo, is the path to peace and harmony. Both inner conflict, and among others. Mutual understanding produces peace. Mutual understanding produces harmony. Music is a great example of this. But even more simply, any two neighbors having a border dispute can resolve the conflict through mutual understanding without intimate knowledge of each other. This is the foundation, root, of respect [gevurah]. Mutual understanding of boundries.

So, the "rider" hops onto the chariot, and goes for a ride. First descending through the other-worlds, of nearly infinte negations. Then ascends on the return course approaching the infinte. The peak of its journey is not nullifying within the source, but instead it's peak is the endless "station", without-limit, which includes the nearly limitless negations but they are understood from a different perspective. The rider, remains in the chariot, does not, forgive me, "penetrate" the station in a manner which could be described as "knowing". They remain inside the chariot.

Ezekiel's vision, the original source for mercavah mysticism ( in reverse ) Notice. There is a wheel within a wheel. The rider ( who is themself a wheel, a chariot, in the micro ) does not depart from the chariot ( which is a wheel in the macro ).

---

1:16
The appearance of the wheels and their work was like the color of an emerald; and the four had one likeness; and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.

1:15
And as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.

1:14
And the living creatures ran and returned like the appearance of a flash of lightning.

1:13
As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of torches; it flashed up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and from the fire went forth lightning.

1:12
And they went everyone straight forward; where the spirit would go, they went; and they turned not when they went.

---

Wheel in wheel, it flashes up and and down. Up and down can also be inner and outer.

Jacob's ladder:

---

28:11
And he lighted upon a certain place, and remained there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.

28:12
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the "messangers of elohim" ascending and descending on it.

---

This is from the ceiling of Grand Central Station: The immortal wheels and the the twin-serpents repeated 6 times each. The masons know what to do. I took these photos over the summer while I was visiting New York. There's so much amazing stone work there. Apologies for the poor quality; I'm not a photographer.

[Ziran]

The immortal wheels and the the twin-serpents repeated 6 times each.

6 = tiferet / a balancing of the polarities by **inclusion** / beauty / harmony / compassion / mercy / truth.

Note: This may a be a bit controversial, but, people misinterpret chesed, and translate it as mercy. This comes from a misinterpretation of psalm 110 when The ToL was adopted and incorporated in Hermetic Qabalah. But that's not important right now.

What's import in the context of the divine chariot, is, tiferet connects to all the others, like a central hub, or a "grand central" train startion. The ones who chose to adorn Grand Central station with the immortal wheels and the twin-serpents 6 times each, knew what they were doing. 6 wheels, 6 serpent-pairs, 6,6,6. 6,6,6 represents tiferet as it is manifesting through the 3 worlds prior to "landing" in assiyah: Tiferet of Atzilut, Tiferet of Beriah, Tiferet of Yetzirah, 6,6,6.

BTW, 6, 6, 6, is actually a perfectly fine number. There's nothing wrong with it at all. It all depends on how it is applied.

6,6,6? Is it descending, or ascending? Or, more important, Is it descending for the purpose of ascent? Is it ascending for the purpose of descent ( lifting you up, just to knock you down )? Is it an inward application, a trap, a pit, a snare, a honey pot? Or is it an outward application, a ladder, a rope, a catapult, or a chariot leading to freedom?

These are important questions, because, when lost in the woods, it's easy to travel in the wrong direction unintended. Instead of heading towards freedom, the traveler is digging themself deeper and deeper into the quagmire. Effecting self-rescue requires "gettiing one's bearings". There's several methods for this, primary among them is heading for high-ground.

Seeking the inclusion of tiferet makes sense, because from that perspective, it connects to everything. It's a good vantage point. Although there is a flip side to inclusion and that is, imo, what is being described in the book of revelation which is the original source of 6,6,6 as the mark of the beast. Throughout the book of revelation there is reference to this flip side and how the flip side can be easily confused for its partner. This is an opportunty for those who wish to decieve. But those who are adherents to the book are often not aware that everything has a flip side, which means 6,6,6 is just as holy as it is corrupt depending on what, when, where, how, and why, the 5 qualities that define justice, just like everything.

[CCoburn]

You can hypothesize that everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be, exists in some form now as we speak, and we are just at some arbitrary location within this infinite sea of eternity - some terms here are contradictory.

I'm not seeing the contradiction, but I think there is an unfounded assumption.

"... we are just at some arbitrary location ... "

"... we are just at some arbitrary location ... "

"just" aka "only" is the assumption.

It just doesn't seem quite the same talking about "location" with respect to this infinite 'nonlinear' eternity as opposed to a finite linear universe that has an absolute reference point at its beginning.

[Ziran]

It just doesn't seem quite the same talking about "location" with respect to this infinite 'nonlinear' eternity as opposed to a finite linear universe that has an absolute reference point at its beginning.

Still linear, but concurrent. The causes and effects are simultaneous. The attributes "IF ... THEN", "AND THEN" still exist. It's a "gathering" of the "fabric" of time.

An in-gathering, a terreract, a "wrinkle in time"

A Wrinkle in Time - 1962

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wrinkle_in_Time

^^ In-Gathering the Fabric of Time ^^ .jpg (23.09 KiB) Viewed 39519 times

[CCoburn]

Ziran,

How exactly do you envision the tree of life commencing, unfolding, and progressing geometrically in an actual cosmological environment? Keeping in mind of course that this process is without beginning or end.

This is complicated, naturally. It's the subject of books, not forum posts. And, to be honest I have never seen it written in any 1 specific place. Technically it's never supposed to be written. Although, typical in my tradition, immediately following the rule are exceptions.

Based on the conversation we're having, I'm not sure that answering this at this moment makes sense. And I've been pondering where to begin. I think it's best to begin with vessels and the body/soul dynamic. Those are the building blocks for reality, and those are the sephirot.

I'll give you a clue: Ayin

[Ziran]

I'll give you a clue: Ayin

I see your Ayin, and I raise you an Ayin. ע = vav + nun. It is not the first nor the last. It requires at least 2 before it. The very first letter, arguably is the yud. A speck emanating from above with little "thorns" pointing both up-and-down simultaneously. It is associated with chochmah. It's like an epiphany. Or lightning striking.

Ayin is the beginning of עֲשִׂיָּה assiyah. The physical domain, but that's at the end of the creative process. There are several others before it. ‎עֲשִׂיָּה comes from עשה which means to make or to do. It is the end of the creative process not the beginning. It's the end of the beginning. Not the begininng of the beginning. It's important, of course. Look at it: ( hee. pun intended, Ayin means "eye" ) ע is a vessel. A requirement for the material world.

Before anything can be called "made" עשה, it must be formed (yotzer), created (barah), and emanated (atzmut). Aleph, bet, yud, then >>>>>> ayin.

How does a potter make a vessel on a wheel? They press down on formless clay and raise its walls into a form. This is yotzer from the realm of yetzirah producing assiyah. The downward-and-upward simultaneous pressure is what is producing ayin. The ayin is formed when the potter's fingers act as hooks drawing in and up, simultaneously. This is the vav, the hook, forming ayin. Just as it is scribed. Then the vessel is fired ( surrounded and filled with fire ) and it is not complete until it has cooled and is filled what ever it was designed to collect. An empty vessel is not serving any purpose and is a waste of material. Do you know what happens to pottery if there is a pocket of "nothingness" where the fire cannot reach in the kiln? Broken vessel.

What you seem to be talking about, is tohu v'vohu. The chaos and void. But it is just an ingredient in the creation process, a by product of creation of heaven and earth. It's certainly not ayin.

If you are asking which letter repesents the beginning of the beginning, it's aleph representing atzmut, in the realm of atzilut, emanation. It's two opposing yuds reflecting through a mirror, the vav.

^^ Opposing Forces in Tension ^^ .png (7.1 KiB) Viewed 39511 times

[CCoburn]

I think your writing is quite theologically/Kabbalistally mystical and that's good for an occult forum; it's also good for a thread titled "Kabbalah" or "The Tree of Life". I on the other hand am currently attempting to incorporate more of a cosmological twist on these concepts which is aimed at achieving more straightforward and concise replies, descriptions, and explanations.

Einstein once said that "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, then you don't understand it yourself.", which seems appropriate for the manner in which I am attempting to convey these concepts and not directed at you for your style of writing which appears proficient in its own right.

I have been re-perusing some Kabbalistic literature and terms to pick up on any things I may have missed and to see if I come across anything that might begin to correlate parts(more or less) of your ideology which would be an interesting 'yes' on the former and 'maybe' on the latter which I'll likely be getting to eventually.

With respect to the "Ayin" I did write some very brief essays a couple years ago titled "Spheres Within Spheres", plus I have some other relevant miscellaneous that would be suitable for the "Kabbalah" thread, and this was all prior to any knowledge of the translation of Ayin to eye in which I was referencing it as "the eye of eternity".

The correlations will be revealed as I continue posting here, but not as anything to be perceived as dramatically profound; just casual observations made over the past few years and mostly more recently than not.

[Ziran]

"If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, then you don't understand it yourself."

קַבָּלָה Kabalah means "received" Noun-Feminine. It is a basket and receiving inspiration which just so happens to be ever-flowing . "To be inspired" is an concept which is easily explained to a 6-year old. Although it is profound when it is explored in depth and applied. Making baskets, is also, easy to explain but takes skill to complete without the entire construct un-becoming in one great big "sproing". And that ignores the knowledge required to locate the proper materials which support weaving it all together in the first place.

But, who can't explain a basket to a young child? Who can't explain inspiration? However, exploiting those concepts? And using them to do good? That's art-and-science simultaneously. And, it is tremendously rewarding. The sense of accomplishment is delicious. The more one learns the more there is to explore. Every indvidual discovery in science produces multiple new avenues for exploration. It just keeps going. It's a one-to-many relationship.

[CCoburn]

Part of the problem of course is that if you resolve the Kabbalah in a straightforward and concise cosmological manner so that a layman/child can understand it then you are removing its mystery and the game is over. It is possible to reduce Kabbalah to its most profound inquiries, resolve them, and move on...

But of course everyone is entitled to their very own interpretation of the terms and concepts therein, so here we are.

[CCoburn]

And even though everyone is "entitled to their very own interpretation", the phrase conjures an analogy where absolute truth runs parallel with the Highlander - there can be only one.

[CCoburn]

What I tried to describe earlier, was an infinite chain, ( technially a multi-stranded rope to accomodate parallel universes ) At the top of the chain is the source which is acausal. There time is not flowing and everything is concurrent. But as soon as there is a form, as soon as there is the will to create, then time is flowing from thatt point onward in the chain / rope / fabric of reality.

That's what I'm trying to say. There is not "no-time". There is concurrence at the very tippy top. A finite being can approach it, but never acheive it.

I also could've pointed out here that within an infinite/eternal context(your "infinte chain") that there can't be any "top"(not even a "tippy top"). You can't have a top without a 'bottom' as time can have no begining without end, and it can't be infinite in both directions either - an understanding of alternate time scenarios and why they are not valid is required here.

Negation resolves more problems including the above; applying finite terms to infinities is contradictory. Also why "potential" may be applicable where actuality is not. "Parallel universes" is another matter.

[Ziran]

I also could've pointed out here that within an infinite/eternal context(your "infinte chain") that there can't be any "top"(not even a "tippy top"). You can't have a top without a 'bottom' as time can have no begining without end, and it can't be infinite in both directions either - an understanding of alternate time scenarios and why they are not valid is required here.

Negation resolves more problems including the above; applying finite terms to infinities is contradictory. Also why "potential" may be applicable where actuality is not. "Parallel universes" is another matter.

This is what I said:

"there is only one which is absolutely literally infinite, and I am not it. I am finite. I cannot escape that limitation. There might be parts of me that infinite in certain ways, but I do not condier myself absolutley literally infinite in a way where time can stop flowing for me. I can slow down time, I can speed up time from my perspective. I can approach the inifinite. But I can never achieve it. That's me. It's only this mysterious acausal-nameless-formless-ness which is absolutley literally infinite. The "source".

What I tried to describe earlier, was an infinite chain, ( technially a multi-stranded rope to accomodate parallel universes ) At the top of the chain is the source which is acausal. There time is not flowing and everything is concurrent. But as soon as there is a form, as soon as there is the will to create, then time is flowing from thatt point onward in the chain / rope / fabric of reality."

There's different types of "infinite". There's only one which is absolutely literally infinite in all ways and more. Then there is an infinte chain / rope / fabirc of reality which is a different sort of infinite. The chain is infinite but more like a spectrum. So there is a top of the chain, and actually a bottom of the chain of reality, but there are infinite links of the chain. Similar to how there are uncountably infinite wavelengths of light. In between each wavelength, there is another.

If one uses the chain analogy, in each link of the chain there is a timeline which is infinite. That timeline is replicated in each link of teh chain, but it becomes more and more distinct in form as the chains in the links in reality approach the the link in the chain which represents the "material world". Once it reaches the material world the time line is fully defined with moments bordered by significant events before and after it.

[CCoburn]

Perhaps you are using "top" as more metaphorical; I prefer 'root', and you apear to be grasping this "everything is concurrent" concept for dear life. Even Kabbalah has 'Ain' at its core which literally means 'nothing'; it does not mean "everything is concurrent", and as soon as you apply this 'concept', Ain loses its meaning and Kabbalah has been abandoned to the wayside.

You need to put your ideas within the Kabbalistic model: are you referring the Ain, the Ain Soph, or the Ain Soph Aur?

I can maybe understand why someone might think in terms of infinity when it comes to eternity, but there is a difference between things that 'actually' exist and existing 'fabrications' that the human mind is capable.

I would say that the "chain" itself is theoretically infinite but that the individual "links" are finite - this runs parallel with creation of finite universes within an eternal construct(eternal "chain").

At the absolute core(or top regarding the two-dimensional schematic) of the Kabbalah(existence and non) you have the Ain. Ain: nada, zip, zilch, zero, negation - nothing(including anything you can think of), absolutely nothing.

[CCoburn]

The irony does appear to be overwhelming in that absolute negation is in symphony with everything

- ineffable

[Ziran]

Perhaps you are using "top" as more metaphorical; I prefer 'root',

Have you considered the difference between Qabbalah and Kabbalah?

and you apear to be grasping this "everything is concurrent" concept for dear life. Even Kabbalah has 'Ain' at its core which literally means 'nothing'; it does not mean "everything is concurrent", and as soon as you apply this 'concept', Ain loses its meaning and Kabbalah has been abandoned to the wayside.

I simply do not agree with this declaration that "nothing" is at the core.

You need to put your ideas within the Kabbalistic model: are you referring the Ain, the Ain Soph, or the Ain Soph Aur?

Well... I actually don't need to. These ideas are certainly in a Kabbalistic model. As I have written already, I am talking about the source for those concepts. This is described in the Zohar and it is well known to those who taught me. I was taught about "nothing" and the infinite ein-soph and the ein-soph-ohr. But it is very important and clearly stated that none of these are the "core" or the "root" or the "source". The "source" is the source. Those others aren't it.

When "nothing" is lifted up as supreme the result is completely different. That is Qabbalah.

I can maybe understand why someone might think in terms of infinity when it comes to eternity, but there is a difference between things that 'actually' exist and existing 'fabrications' that the human mind is capable.

Unless you want to know why, I don't see any reason to discuss it.

I would say that the "chain" itself is theoretically infinite but that the individual "links" are finite - this runs parallel with creation of finite universes within an eternal construct(eternal "chain").

When the links are examined each one contains 10 vessels which can be empty or full. "Empty-to-full" is a spectrum, which produces infinite variance. Then these 10 are combined as a partnership which is one individual link. Each individual ink is receiving ( literally Kabbalah, which means receiving, feminine ) from the previous link which is, itself, constructed from 10 vessels with their own infinite variance.

Each link is infinite as a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, etc.... all the way back to Ein-Soph which is without-limit, and that's as far up as the human mind can go.

There is another direction the mind can go. If it pushes past the Ein-Soph and goes to Ein, which is not "nothing" it's "denial", then it goes immediately to the bottom of the chain where it can loop endlessly. There are no rules there. Many people like it there.

But I was taught there is no need to extend. Literally I was taught this.

רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה מַאֲרֵיךְ טוּבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאַמְלֵיכְתֵּיהּ לְמַעְלָה וּלְמַטָּה וּלְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם — תּוּ לָא צְרִיכַתְּ

Rabbi Yirmeya was seated before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He saw that he was greatly extending. He said to him: Once you have crowned Him over above in Heaven, below on earth, and in the four corners of the heavens, you need not extend any further.

I need not extend beyond those 6 which produces the chariot in tiferet, as I showed you in the diagram. Crowning, is reaching beyond my position in that chariot, skipping-over "ein". Going back to the perspective of the nearly infinite-chain, just as there are nearly infinite links in the chain, there are nearly infinite "ein"s. There's not just one from this perspective. It's not the root or core of any of them or anything from this perspective. It just cycles in an abyss of its own denial. A person can extend beyond their current position, and if they do, the first thing they encounter is "ein". And Qabbalah will teach that this is it, the summit. "Free at last, Free at last, thank God almighty, I'm free at last." But that's not it. Not for Kabbalah, only for Qabbalah.

There are people who recruit for Qabbalah and they utilise the same words and concepts as Kabbalah, and even stole the name and misspelled it slightly so that in conversation they can speak about their version without technically lying about it. It's a very sneaky-sneaky tactic for recruitment.
And there's people who don't know the difference and call it Kabbalah even though it's not. I have no doubtt there are books published that have it wrong, just like any other occult topic. But one can always tell those who are into Qabbalah, literally into it, because they cannot tolerate both sides.

My vote? Naturally I support both sides. Both can be used to get to the same place, or a person a choose the abyss, which is a different place. It's each person's choice. Like I've been saying I do not consider anything you're saying to be false. From a certain perrspective "nothing" can be the core or root. That's not my perspective, but I can understand why it would appear that way from a specific point of view.

It's not false to say it, but it is false to assert it as the only truth.

At the absolute core(or top regarding the two-dimensional schematic) of the Kabbalah(existence and non) you have the Ain. Ain: nada, zip, zilch, zero, negation - nothing(including anything you can think of), absolutely nothing.

That's Qabbalah, not Kabbalah. At the top is everything, at the bottom is denial.

[Amor]

The Tree of Life can be found across the landscape at all scales including locality, island, continent and greater

Find one of those trees and experiment with the energies to identify the qualities/functionality.

Or try the same experiments on a human

[CCoburn]

Have you considered the difference between Qabbalah and Kabbalah?

No, not extensively. From what I understand, one is Hermetic version(Qabalah), and the other is Jewish version(Kabbalah). I believe these are both variances of the Ari tree - Lurianic model(Rabbi Isaac Luria), and that there is much more of a distinction between those and the Gra(perfected tree).

I simply do not agree with this declaration that "nothing" is at the core.

It's likely your interpretation of "nothing" that feeds your disdain for it. Both Kabbalah and contemporary inflation/expansion theories apply this terminology, big coincidence huh? The reason why is that space was 'created', it 'expanded' from a single zero-dimensional point, a primordial point(Kabbalah), AKA a singularity(1; Keter).

In case you don't know, this is not the same as saying space was 'empty'; quite the contrary, it is saying that 'it didn't exist', and was created, or "expanded" from nothing(not precisely defined) to the re-emergence of 1(God) and then to everything else - the remaining sefirot.

It's not the same as believing in the "nothing" of layman terms, and as stated previously, this nothing is very special indeed or else we wouldn't be here talking about it right now.

When the links are examined each one contains 10 vessels which can be empty or full. "Empty-to-full" is a spectrum, which produces infinite variance. Then these 10 are combined as a partnership which is one individual link. Each individual ink is receiving ( literally Kabbalah, which means receiving, feminine ) from the previous link which is, itself, constructed from 10 vessels with their own infinite variance.

Each link is infinite as a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, which is filled from the infinite link above it which is a partnership of 10 spectrums, etc.... all the way back to Ein-Soph which is without-limit, and that's as far up as the human mind can go.

This sounds a lot like "spheres within spheres" and has to do with the way the sefirot develop cosmologically and is different than as presented in the two-dimensional schematic. Every sphere contains every other sphere but of a different manner depending on what point the 'tree' is currently at in its cosmic evolution, so, this would be a concentric three-dimensional format of progression and perhaps metaphorically similar to the 'layers' of an onion where the "layers" are symbolic of the sefirot.

Some might take the above to an extreme and say that since every sphere contains every other sphere is tantamount to saying that every sphere in effect contains a whole other tree(of 10), and this process can continue both inward and outward indefinitely. This seems to be reading a bit too much though into the initial premise here of "spheres within spheres".

[CCoburn]

It's not false to say it, but it is false to assert it as the only truth.

When I talk about "truth", I am talking about the way in which 'actual' cosmological events transpired; here we have a union of Kabbalah and contemporary expansion theory which appear to be in agreement with one another quite well at the origin.

What I am not talking about is 'belief'. Sometimes I even precede "truth" with "absolute", i.e., "absolute truth" to help clarify this. There is only one "truth" pertaining to the actuality in which "cosmological events transpired" covering the entire gamut of existence and non within an eternal construct <-- some of my own "belief" is present in that statement.

Make no mistake about it, there is only 'one' "truth", granted, one may be allotted a bit of leeway in conveyance of that truth which could be a slippery slope, but I think not so much for someone that actually knows the truth, and they may not even unequivocally know that they know.

I cannot state "unequivocally" that I do in fact know this ultimate truth, but just that I have eventually arrived at what I currently "believe".

[Ziran]

Have you considered the difference between Qabbalah and Kabbalah?

No, not extensively.

Then I think it's inappropriate to object based on what you consider to be included in or excluded from Kabbalah.

I simply do not agree with this declaration that "nothing" is at the core.

It's likely your interpretation of "nothing" that feeds your disdain for it.

I respectfully request that you do not assume my feelings on this subject, or for that matter, any others. I do not disdain "nothing". I feel like I have been clear about this. But, if you would like my opinion or judgement, about this or any other topic, I will give it honestly. It's better than assuming my position.

Thank you,

[Ziran]

It's not false to say it, but it is false to assert it as the only truth.

When I talk about "truth", I am talking about the way in which 'actual' cosmological events transpired; here we have a union of Kabbalah and contemporary expansion theory which appear to be in agreement with one another quite well at the origin.

What I am not talking about is 'belief'. Sometimes I even precede "truth" with "absolute", i.e., "absolute truth" to help clarify this. There is only one "truth" pertaining to the actuality in which "cosmological events transpired" covering the entire gamut of existence and non within an eternal construct <-- some of my own "belief" is present in that statement.

Make no mistake about it, there is only 'one' "truth", granted, one may be allotted a bit of leeway in conveyance of that truth which could be a slippery slope, but I think not so much for someone that actually knows the truth, and they may not even unequivocally know that they know.

I cannot state "unequivocally" that I do in fact know this ultimate truth, but just that I have eventually arrived at what I currently "believe".

The content of your post was asserting several perspectives as absolute truth, and denying other perspectives. Even if we depart from anything kabalistic, mystical, occult, magical, etc... there are varying cosmological explanations which are speculated in conventional scienctific academics.

And.

As far as I know "nothing" is not at the "core" of any of those theories. I am confident of this because the academic scientific community is strongly biased against creation ex-nihilo. It is too religious, and too miraculous. However, you have inspired me to confirm this, and update my personal explorations on this, from a purely scientific perspective.

If I find that I was wrong, or there are new theories including creation ex-nihiilo, or anything even resembling "nothing is at the core" (which was your assertion), I will update this thread with what I find.

Sincerely,

[CCoburn]

The content of your post was asserting several perspectives as absolute truth, and denying other perspectives. Even if we depart from anything kabalistic, mystical, occult, magical, etc... there are varying cosmological explanations which are speculated in conventional scienctific academics.

And.

As far as I know "nothing" is not at the "core" of any of those theories. I am confident of this because the academic scientific community is strongly biased against creation ex-nihilo. It is too religious, and too miraculous. However, you have inspired me to confirm this, and update my personal explorations on this, from a purely scientific perspective.

If I find that I was wrong, or there are new theories including creation ex-nihiilo, or anything even resembling "nothing is at the core" (which was your assertion), I will update this thread with what I find.

Sincerely,

You're going to make me say it. I've used key words that I thought would've been sufficient, but here we are. I'm going to say this and I'm only going to say it once because I have come to dislike the terminology - I really think they could've done better.

But here we go. I have called it inflation/expansion theory(an improvement), but what it is more commonly referred as the most renown theory of our time is(drumroll): The Big Bang Theory.

At the origin of the above theory you will find resemblance if not something more akin to an actual carbon copy of the first few phases of the Tree of Life.

Nothing? Ex nihilo? Yes indeed, but again, as stated, you cannot take "nothing" at face value - neti neti.

[Ziran]

Yes indeed, but again, as stated, you cannot take "nothing" at face value - neti neti.

I **cannnot** ? You're doing it again. You're making a proclamation of absolute truth and projecting it onto me as an imperative. I'm part serious and part joking. Part serious because it's rude and inappropriate. Part joking because it's becoming funny that you use this sort of language when it is clearly false.
This has become absurd. I cannot? Hah!

Regarding the big-bang, yes, I've heard of it. ~eye-rolls~ But in order to pound or bang that "nothing" shaped peg in to the singularity event, I think you would be doing at least as much mental gynmasitcs as you were objecting to in what I wrote.

And, I didn't even do any mental gynmastics.

My recollection is that the sungularity includes everything which is the opposite of nothing.

How about this, a wager. No risk for you, all the risk is mine.

I will donate $52 (Binah) to the charity of your choice which has an online donation portal if I am wrong, then post a picture of the completed transation in this tread.

Deal?

[CCoburn]

Regarding the big-bang, yes, I've heard of it. ~eye-rolls~ But in order to pound or bang that "nothing" shaped peg in to the singularity event, I think you would be doing at least as much mental gynmasitcs as you were objecting to in what I wrote.

And, I didn't even do any mental gynmastics.

My recollection is that the sungularity includes everything which is the opposite of nothing.

There is one thing that comes to mind that might require a bit of "mental gymnastics" - at first, and that would be in the conceptualizing of an existence void of space: no location; you can say that a "singularity" exists, but there isn't 'anywhere' for it to exist since it is the only thing in existence; for the human mind this may initially be like trying to fit a round "peg" in a square hole.

And as far as the "singularity event" itself, I'm not so concerned with some of its presumed theoretical properties such as infinite density and thermodynamics as I am the fact that it is 'dimensionless' aside from perhaps the time dimension(1), and the likely reason it is said to be of infinite density is because of division by zero via the d=m/v formula where density is equal to mass divided by volume. Division by zero is undefined such as the precise nature of God, so any rational expression that attempts to equate itself with the divine will also fail, be undefined, or in the case of any value being divided by zero it might seem reasonable that the result approaches infinity, or, is just simply, undefined, as God itself is undefined, and even though God is "undefined", I still have plenty so say about 'it'.

No "wagers". I'm just here for the writing and the music.

[Ziran]

There is one thing that comes to mind that might require a bit of "mental gymnastics" - at first, and that would be in the conceptualizing of an existence void of space: no location; you can say that a "singularity" exists, but there isn't 'anywhere' for it to exist since it is the only thing in existence; for the human mind this may initially be like trying to fit a round "peg" in a square hole.

It contains "anywhere" and "everywhere" and "nowhere" simultaneously. But your preference seems to be to ignore these other properties and assert a "gospel-of-zero" bowing to "not-this-not-this" while ignoring the "and-this-and-this" which are required for any of the analogies proposed to function. That's the simple truth. I located a hypothesis for creation ex-nihilo in a scientific journal. it is not peer-reviewed, to the best of my judgement, but, it produces the null-origin via a theoretical negation at the singularity by including literally every"thing" and every non-"thing", which they claim as a version of "null" even though, it is actually all-inclusive, not even a whiff of "emptiness"

And as far as the "singularity event" itself, I'm not so concerned with some of its presumed theoretical properties such as infinite density and thermodynamics as I am the fact that it is 'dimensionless' aside from perhaps the time dimension(1), and the likely reason it is said to be of infinite density is because of division by zero via the d=m/v formula where density is equal to mass divided by volume. Division by zero is undefined such as the precise nature of God, so any rational expression that attempts to equate itself with the divine will also fail, be undefined, or in the case of any value being divided by zero it might seem reasonable that the result approaches infinity, or, is just simply, undefined, as God itself is undefined, and even though God is "undefined", I still have plenty so say about 'it'.

That's a rather massive double standard. You are forgiving of the weaknesses in your own position, but harshly critical of mine. I'm glad we cleared that up.

No "wagers". I'm just here for the writing and the music.

Naturally. If your position actually meritted the force behind your words, then, you had an opportunity to do something good for a charity of your choosing. The fact that you have opted out indicates clearly, to me, the actual merit of your convictions on this matter. I will keep that mind for this topic in my conversations with you.