The Tree of Life

[Ziran]

I also came across something last week that I've never seen before that I found intriguing : "Something from nothing and nothing from something" which appears to be a resolution(a returning; a reset) back to the ain as part of a perpetual cycle.

When I read this, it is a partnership, like all the others. But there is no returning to "ain". "ain" is in the middle as a pit-stop between two somethings.

A resolution back to nothing = nothing to something and something to nothing = nothing <---> something <----> nothing. That is not what it says. It says the opposite. A resolution back to something = something to nothing and nothing to something = something <---> nothing <---> something. That IS what it says.

"ain" is in the middle as a pit-stop between two somethings.
That is what the quote says.

"Something from nothing and nothing from something"

Why are you choosing to ignore the first part? The quote as a whole puts "nothing" in the middle.

---

[CCoburn]

When I read this, it is a partnership, like all the others. But there is no returning to "ain". "ain" is in the middle as a pit-stop between two somethings.

A resolution back to nothing = nothing to something and something to nothing = nothing <---> something <----> nothing. That is not what it says. It says the opposite. A resolution back to something = something to nothing and nothing to something = something <---> nothing <---> something. That IS what it says.

"ain" is in the middle as a pit-stop between two somethings.
That is what the quote says.

"Something from nothing and nothing from something"

Why are you choosing to ignore the first part? The quote as a whole puts "nothing" in the middle.

---

Eternity doesn't have a "middle"; it doesn't have a beginning, and it doesn't have an end. All you are doing is isolating a 'relative' segment(which does have a middle) from an 'absolute' eternal context that does NOT have a "middle".

Status quo as usual as I continuously find myself reiterating basic concepts because of your ignorance; it's not really a bad thing in its entirety though as it gives opportunity to write if and when I feel like it.

The errs of a child. I suppose it is I that should be writing so that a "six-year-old can understand it".

[Ziran]

---

Misquoting Someone Else's Ideas is Wrong

Eternity doesn't have a "middle"; it doesn't have a beginning, and it doesn't have an end. All you are doing is isolating a 'relative' segment(which does have a middle) from an 'absolute' eternal context that does NOT have a "middle".

BUZZZZZZZ. Wrong answer. It's not me. I am not doing anything. You brought a quote. Your opinion is valid, to a degree.

Misquoting someone else's words is not valid at all.

"Something from nothing and nothing from something"

Nothing is in the middle of this statement. It is that simple.

which appears to be a resolution(a returning; a reset) back to the ain as part of a perpetual cycle.

Nope. That would flip-flopping, twisting and inverting someone else's words to fit YOUR version of fabricated kabbalah.

Your word choice: fabricated.

Status quo as usual as I continuously find myself reiterating basic concepts because of your ignorance; it's not really a bad thing in its entirety though as it gives opportunity to write if and when I feel like it.

The status quo is a personal preference, inclination, fixation, and facination towards "nothingness"

---

[CCoburn]

BUZZZZZZZ. Wrong answer. It's not me. I am not doing anything. You brought a quote. Your opinion is valid, to a degree.

Misquoting someone else's words is not valid at all.

It looks like we got ourselves a real live troll here, otherwise your stupidity would be beyond comprehension. You're just playing language games with trivial irrelevant shit in an attempt to divert your fallibility. I know what your're doing, and you know what you're doing.

I'm not being provoked in to replying to irrelevant shit, but I might be inclined to play this game if I'm here to write and it seems like a good idea at the time.

[Ziran]

You're just playing language games with trivial irrelevant shit

No. In authentic Kabbalah, "nothingness" the "Ein" is not the beginning of the process at all. I already gave you the answer in the simplest of terms.

In a later post you actually adopted what I wrote, by placing "Ein/Ein-Soph" together as a partnership. Based on your writing and philosoply you probably meant: "Ein=Ein-Soph", but if you typed that, it would be obviously false.

"Ein" - Nothingness is not the root, or at the core, of the authentic tree of life. It does not matter how much you desire to place the label of Kabbalah onto it, it's not true.

I also came across something last week that I've never seen before that I found intriguing : "Something from nothing and nothing from something"

"Something from nothing and nothing from something" <----------- nothing is in the middle

which appears to be a resolution(a returning; a reset) back to the ain as part of a perpetual cycle.

No. It is not a reset back to "ain".

"Something from nothing and nothing from something" <--------- a reset to 'yesh' to something.

Considering it a reset back to "ain" would be flip-flopping, reversing, inverting, and twisting it in order to satisfy an inner desire, fixation, facination on "nothingness". It's fine to be facinated and fixating on it, unless a person is deluding themself and cannot admit to their irrational passion ( or irrational denial of passion ) which is driving their train of thought.

You seem to be IN-LOVE with NOTHING. ( or in denial ) And I honestly have a lot of sympathy for you being in that position. Sincerely.

You're just playing language games...

No..... I'm not flip-flopping, inverting, and twisting the quote to force a meaning to it to satisfy my own desires. That sort of forked-tongue word-play is all YOU, my dear.

in an attempt to divert your fallibility. I know what your're doing, and you know what you're doing.

You have been claiming that that "nothingness" MUST be at the root or core of the creative process and that all other perspectives are irrattional, incoherent, and that your view is backed up by the big-bang-theory. None of that is true.

You seem to have spent a lot of time and energy convincing yourself of this, and some part of that is attached to words and phrases in the Kabbalistic framework. What I am doing is showing you the actual merit of those convictions. Until you made the claim about the big-bang they were equal and opposite of what authentic Kabbalah teaches. Equal and opposite.

Then you made the claim about the big-bang. I was nice about it. I said I would review it and report back if I was wrong. You kept pushing. So, I pushed back. And here we are.

That ^^ is what I am doing.

---

[CCoburn]

No. In authentic Kabbalah, "nothingness" the "Ein" is not the beginning of the process at all.

There is no "beginning". I already told you that(at least more than once). It's like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg?(Don't answer that.).

I already gave you the answer in the simplest of terms.

And I probably disagreed with it. Much of what you say is flawed; I don't need/want such answers, and I believe I already have enough of the 'correct' answers that are important to me anyway. Your words "authentic Kabbalah" mean absolutely nothing to me; partly due the individual conveying such words. Who is Ziran? Nobody to me and as stated a "nobody" whose writing is "flawed". It would probably take me weeks to go through all of your verbose essays quoting and replying to errors and inaccuracies.

In a later post you actually adopted what I wrote, by placing "Ein/Ein-Soph" together as a partnership. Based on your writing and philosoply you probably meant: "Ein=Ein-Soph", but if you typed that, it would be obviously false.

I don't think it's time for the "Ein Soph" yet since you persist in misunderstanding the "Ein".

"Ein" - Nothingness is not the root, or at the core, of the authentic tree of life. It does not matter how much you desire to place the label of Kabbalah onto it, it's not true.

You continue in not understanding the "nothingness" of the Ein. I believe the primary reason this terminology is used is because the "Ein" is dimensionless, so, it is at least a 'spatial' "nothingness"; what remains of it is its 'limitless potential', and once you conceive of the latter it then becomes the "Ein Soph" - no limit of "nothing". You can't impose any kind of 'spatial infinity' upon it for obvious reasons.

Ein Soph is akin two facets of a single 'thing'. A "thing" that transcends space and reason; it is not "absolute nothingness", and I've also already said that too at least more than once, because nothing could ever come from it, unless of course in some bizarre existential reality where things could actually somehow emerge from "absolute nothingness".

In this context then, the type of "nothingness" I am referring could be labeled "Relative Nothingness" as an aid in distinguishing the perception of it.

Once you cross over the zero-dimensional threshold of space you are in a whole different reality where the same universal laws and rationale do not apply; I'm not convinced you're grasping this concept as of yet.

Also, you are using some strong vocabulary here regarding my feelings such as "desire", et cetera(more troll behavior). Look kid, the passion here is yours not mine. In general, this whole model here has been a done deal for a while now before you showed up on the block, and I don't really care for you or anything you've been saying thus far.

Your posts are mostly long incoherent irrelevant ramblings so even if there is anything of value to be gleaned it likely becomes lost in all of and the continuing erroneous clutter.

I will admit though, there may be some fine tuning(or evolution) of terminology on my part here to drive some of these ideas through your thick "authentic Kabbalistic" scull - currently to no avail it would seem.

I suppose also the "Ein Soph" made its appearance due the never-ending longevity of the "Ein"; it's tantamount to going on and on about the Yin without referencing the Yang.

Now go ahead with your troll "passion" and deliberately counter, possibly/naturally fail to comprehend, or some combination of the two so that this game of bullshit can continue - quite the "passion" in replying to everything I say.

Seriously, the thought of you believing everything you say is unfathomable - troll.

[Ziran]

No. In authentic Kabbalah, "nothingness" the "Ein" is not the beginning of the process at all.

There is no "beginning".

If you look closely at both of what was written, we are agreeing. There is no reason to argue... yet.

I wrote: "Ein is not the beginning...."
You wrote : "There is no beginning...."

Beautiful. We agree! Now, if you please, follow that to its logical conclusion.

Ein cannot be at the core or root or anything. Lacking any beginnings and lacking any endings produces a simultaneous partnership of Ein/Ein-Soph. And this is precisley what I wrote when you asked about Ein.

Considering Ein in isolation is like considering darkness without light. It is foolish and cannot be done. This is why there is so much flip-flopping and contorting trying to make "nothing" into "everything". They're both happening simultaneously, but they are not canceling each other out. That is Kabbalah.

I don't see any reason to reply to the remainder of what you have written until this simple fact is acknowledged.

---

[CCoburn]

If you look closely at both of what was written, we are agreeing. There is no reason to argue... yet.

I wrote: "Ein is not the beginning...."
You wrote : "There is no beginning...."

Beautiful. We agree! Now, if you please, follow that to its logical conclusion.

Ein cannot be at the core or root or anything. Lacking any beginnings and lacking any endings produces a simultaneous partnership of Ein/Ein-Soph. And this is precisley what I wrote when you asked about Ein.

Considering Ein in isolation is like considering darkness without light. It is foolish and cannot be done. This is why there is so much flip-flopping and contorting trying to make "nothing" into "everything". They're both happening simultaneously, but they are not canceling each other out. That is Kabbalah.

I believe the context is important here. If you are isolating and conceptualizing the model itself as a static copy of a single iteration then it does in fact have a "root". I've even heard partial anecdotes here about a 'tree' being planted with its "roots" in the air which seems fitting in this context.

Every iteration of a tree has its roots(although usually pointing downward), but with Kabbalah the roots are in 'the air'(so to speak).

Within a single freeze-frame of Kabbalah there is a 'root' from which everything "springs", grows, or emerges and it is called the Ain/Ein, but in real time you cannot regress to a 'first-frame-root', a 'last-frame', or a "middle"-frame et cetera because Kabbalah always has been and always will be subjected to the eternal and "endless frames" paradox.

[Ziran]

If you look closely at both of what was written, we are agreeing. There is no reason to argue... yet.

I wrote: "Ein is not the beginning...."
You wrote : "There is no beginning...."

I believe the context is important here. If you are isolating and conceptualizing the model itself as a static copy of a single iteration then it does in fact have a "root".

You said there is no beginning. Now you are asserting there is a root. That's a 180-degree flip-flop. This is no different than the previous contradiction about temporal negation.

I am most certainly not "isolating and conceptualizing the model itself as a static copy of a single iteration". And neither are you if it has no beginning.

In any event, moving on with my own description:
To me the "Ain" is equated with temporal and spatial negation prior ....

"temporal and spatial negation prior" <----- there is no "prior" at this stage. Temporal negation would prohibit it. Concurrence. Simultaneity. Partners. These are important concepts to keep in mind.

Is there a beginning or not?
Is there a temporal negation or not?
Is this negation a "static single iteration copy"?
Does that ^^ make any sense at all?
It needs to be infinite in its negation.

---

[CCoburn]

You said there is no beginning. Now you are asserting there is a root.

It's just conflation of terminology that's getting your goat. All trees have roots; even metaphorical trees may have roots(the Ein), BUT, there is no 'first tree' root.

The latter above only becomes valid when applied within a fabricated temporal construct - the illusion of a beginning.

[Ziran]

You said there is no beginning. Now you are asserting there is a root.

It's just conflation of terminology that's getting your goat. All trees have roots; even metaphorical trees may have roots(the Ein), BUT, there is no 'first tree' root.

The latter above only becomes valid when applied within a fabricated temporal construct - the illusion of a beginning.

You didn't answer the question: Is there a beginning or not? You're dodging/avoiding admitting to the error by introducing another concept: "the illusion of a beginning". So, what are you talking about? Are you talking about an illusion?

trees may have roots(the Ein)

What does the word "Ein" mean? What do the words "tree-root" mean? If you answer those simple questions directly the folly of your "logic" will be evident.

If the tree-root analogy is considered, the roots are "yesh", the cavities in the earth in which the roots are wriggling are "ayin".

Question: When the roots are growing, what is happening?

Answer: Both are happening simultaneously. The root is growing AND the cavity is expanding.

It's just conflation of terminology that's getting your goat.

It's called a CONTRADICTION. You are conflating yesh and ayin. Because they are opposites, you keep contradicting yourself. It's no different than the "temporal negation" which you claimed was "prior". Yes, it makes sense to imagine "Ein" as magical if a person is ignoring/denying that it has a partner "Ein-Soph", but that is a one-sided delusion. The "magic" is in the partnership. But denial is extremely rewarding. Ironically I cannot deny denial having utility. I use it all the time myself. But I keep it in a little box, and I have the wisdom to know when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate.

Denial wants to deny. Ultimately that's what "Ein" is. "Ein" = "Denial". That's what it is and that is what it does. In a lot of ways, it's useful to consider it a "demon", because it consumes and is never satisfied. But it's not all bad, and it's certainly not evil. Evil is what people do with it. If a person is captivated with it, and invokes it into themself, they will lift up "denial" "Ein" as the highest ideal. It will be their "god/idol". And, this is what "Ein" desires. This is what Qabbalah encourages, but it's not logical even in the slightest.

(InB4: If one doesn't care about being logical and rational, that is perfectly fair. But each and every objection to what I posted was about logic and rationality and what was imagined to be scientific.)

---

[CCoburn]

You didn't answer the question: Is there a beginning or not?

I did answer the question. Maybe part of the problem here is that I've resolved these inquiries a few years ago and you're in the process of resolving them now, so some things might not be as obvious to you as I would think them to be.

And how I answer a question sometimes depends on how it is asked and in which context it is placed. "Is there a beginning or not?". I could answer that by saying no, there is no beginning, or I could also say yes, there have been countless beginnings.

[Ziran]

You didn't answer the question: Is there a beginning or not?

I did answer the question

Not in a manner which is consistent and coherent. And considering your objections of what I wrote, you are being hypocritical, illogical, and deluding yourself with false certainty.

Maybe part of the problem here is that I've resolved these inquiries a few years ago

Botched and bungled is not resolved.

"Is there a beginning or not?". I could answer that by saying no, there is no beginning, or I could also say yes, there have been countless beginnings.

If there are countless beginnings, then there is no root.
If there is no beginning there is no root.

The only way to have any root at all is if there is a beginning. You're still contradicting yourself.

And this ignores that

you cannot distinguish between something and nothing.

---

[CCoburn]

If there are countless beginnings, then there is no root.
If there is no beginning there is no root.

The only way to have any root at all is if there is a beginning. You're still contradicting yourself.

All three of the above sentences are flawed; they are incorrect. I will tell why momentarily, but it will just fly over your head like everything else has, and you will just continue replying with more erroneous nonsense. It's like I've already said, paraphrased: you can keep replying, and I can keep correcting you until Hell freezes over.

The only one who cares and takes what you say seriously is you, and this is just another one of the many reasons why.

The term "root" has two definitions and I am using both of them. It can be a physical property, or it can be used in signifying a source or lack thereof; here are the first two definitions from the Oxford dictionary:

1.
the part of a plant which attaches it to the ground or to a support, typically underground, conveying water and nourishment to the rest of the plant via numerous branches and fibers.
"cacti have deep and spreading roots"

2.
the basic cause, source, or origin of something.
"love of money is the root of all evil"

Using an 'actual' tree as an example. I can go outside and observe any tree and that it does in fact have a "root(s)"; it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether or not there is a 'prototree' as we are applying two different definitions here.

The fact has already been established that trees have roots(def. 1). It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether or not it is just one tree, a finite series of trees with a root "source"(def. 2), or an infinite (eternal) series of trees with no "root source". None of that negates the fact that trees still do in fact have roots.

And I've already told you that you are "conflating the terminologies", but you didn't get it then, and you continue in not getting it now(surprise? No, just more status quo).

You are pigheaded(excessively obstinate) and ignorant of your own folly; like some non-thinking machine that produces nothing but shit.

Can you hear me now? Are any of my words getting through that thick "authentic Kabbalistic" scull of yours?

Plain stupidity, trolling, some combination thereof, or whatever the fuck this is...

Let the games continue. You're on a roll dude, and I'm here to write.

[Ziran]

The term "root" has two definitions and I am using both of them. It can be a physical property, or it can be used in signifying a source or lack thereof;

Lol, bless your heart. You can't seem to count properly. You claim that "root" has two defintions and you're using both of them, but you tacked on a third at the end. I color coded them to aid you.

1) a physical property
2) a source
3) a lack of a source <------ That's the one you added.

This third one is the imaginary, contradictory, incoherent non-sense which cannot distinguish between something and nothing.

A "root" is not "a lack of a source". That is a direct contradiction. Again.

here are the first two definitions from the Oxford dictionary:

You brought three defintions, dear. 1, 2, 3. Guess which one is missing from the Oxford dictionary? The contradiction where you imagine a "root" is "not a source" is not going to be in any dictionary.

1.
the part of a plant which attaches it to the ground or to a support, typically underground, conveying water and nourishment to the rest of the plant via numerous branches and fibers.
"cacti have deep and spreading roots"

2.
the basic cause, source, or origin of something.
"love of money is the root of all evil"

The "lack thereof a source" is missing from these defintions. Why can't you see something so simple?

Oh yeah, you can't distinguish between something and nothing.

The term "root" has two definitions and I am using both of them

You're not using either of the two dictionary definitions you brought. If it is a tree-root, then "Ein" is not the root, it is the cavity in the ground. You ignored this, of course, because it defeats what you've written. If it is the "basic cause, or source of something" then there must be a beginning. So, no, you're not using either of these. You're using the 3rd defintion you brought, but failed to count.

lack thereof

A "lack of a root" =/= "a root". This is about as simple as it gets:

"1" =/= "-1"
"light" =/= "dark"
"open" =/= "closed"
"true" =/= "false"
"shoe" =/= "not a shoe"
"source" =/= "not a source"
"root" =/= "not a root"
"something" =/= "nothing"

["Is there a beginning or not?". I could answer that by saying no, there is no beginning, or I could also say yes, there have been countless beginnings.

If there is no beginning, there is no root.
If there are countless beginnings, there is no root.

If a root is a physical object, it is a beginning.
If a root is a basic source or a cause, it is a beginning.

A lack of a root is not a root.
A lack of a beginning is not a beginning.
A lack of a source is not a source.

Do they have coffee where you are? Make more and wake up.

---

[CCoburn]

Lol, bless your heart. You can't seem to count properly. You claim that "root" has two defintions and you're using both of them, but you tacked on a third at the end.

You seem to be quite confused. First you are confusing "root properties" with "root sources", and now you are confusing 'dictionary definitions' with 'dictionary references'.

If it's any consolation though, I think you do okay on the structuring and formatting of your replies.

[Ziran]

You seem to be quite confused. First you are confusing "root properties" with "root sources", and now you are confusing 'dictionary definitions' with 'dictionary references'.

Those are the words you chose. I am not confusing anything. It's odd that you would say this, because as the author, I would expect you to recall your own written words. I can easily quote them back to you.

The term "root" has two definitions and I am using both of them. It can be a physical property, or it can be used in signifying a source or lack thereof; here are the first two definitions from the Oxford dictionary:

1.
the part of a plant which attaches it to the ground or to a support, typically underground, conveying water and nourishment to the rest of the plant via numerous branches and fibers.
"cacti have deep and spreading roots"

2.
the basic cause, source, or origin of something.
"love of money is the root of all evil"

There you have it. You called them dictionary defintions. You called it a source. You called it a physical property. You said you are using both defintions, but neglected the third which you added where nothing cannot be distinguished from something. Babies can distinguish this difference. They cry when the bottle is empty.

You said: "source" I said: "source"
You said: "definition" I said: "definition"
You said" "physical property" I said: "physical property"

You can't recall what you wrote just 1 post prior? I'm definitely not confused. I've seen this condition in others where they just cannot accept that their strongly held beliefs are contradictory and self-defeating. It's usually science-deniers and religious fundementalists.

Using an 'actual' tree as an example. I can go outside and observe any tree and that it does in fact have a "root(s)"; it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether or not there is a 'prototree' as we are applying two different definitions here.

This analogy is a fail because the grove, as stated has no root. If considering 1 single finite tree, yes it has a root. In order to have a root, it must be finite. You said there is no beginning. That is infinite. You said there are countless beginnings. That is infinite too. The reason you are only seeing "infinite nothinginess" is because you are stuck in assiyah. Gazing out from your position, all you see is nothingness. That's natural and normal, but that's just from the finite perspective.

The fact has already been established that trees have roots(def. 1). It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether or not it is just one tree, a finite series of trees with a root "source"(def. 2), or an infinite (eternal) series of trees with no "root source". None of that negates the fact that trees still do in fact have roots.

It makes a HUGE difference. In the grove there is no "root at the core" in the manner you are claiming: "Ein is at the core". In the grove, yes, there are cavities in the ground. That would be "Ein". There are roots in the ground, that would be "Yesh". Both are happening simultaneously.

"root properties"

You tried to previously describe these "properties" of "Ein" and that was a fail too. "... infinite temporal negation prior..." Remember? If you want to talk about properties go ahead, but they need to be logical, consistent, and coherent IF, big IF, you want to be logical consistent and coherent. You will also need to be logical, consistent, and coherent IF, big IF, you do not want to be a hypocrite. Your objections have been based on false perceptions of illogic, inconsistent, and incoherence. So, you would need to avoid those to avoid being a hypocrite.

Even if you manage to put together a proper defintion, you have already admitted there is a gap in your model. You've said {paraphrasing} "there must be something magica about Ein because everything comes from it, but it's nothingness."

That's an admission of a gap, a missing piece in your construct. You are filling that gap with "magic". It's the "God of the Gaps" argument. "I don't know what it is. I don't understand it. Therefore: Magic". And that's fine until one critisizes anyone else. The "magical gap" in your construct is easily filled with the partnership with Ein-Soph, but, this is naturally objectionable if one is religiously bound to making "Ein" supreme.

---

[Amor]

Guys,

Arguing without experiment is unlikely to extend your participation in Reality

[Ziran]

Guys,

Arguing without experiment is unlikely to extend your participation in Reality

I heard you the first time. This thread is about the Tree-Of-Life, I think that readers should have an opportunity to learn about the authentic Tree-Of-Life compared to the fabricated version which is being promoted by my debate partner. At the very least, it is good and useful for readers to be aware of the original version and then choose for themselves what ever makes most sense to them.

Regarding my experiences, you seem to be assuming that I have not experimented.

[CCoburn]

This Ziran person was quite congenial out-of-the-gate, and it was around the middle of October I believe when I questioned some of the concepts he was positing and he gradually progressed into complete 'troll-mode' from there as this had struck some sort of nerve so to speak.

His writing is mostly metaphorical long-winded riddles and Hebrew text that is NOT aimed at the casual reader as he claims, e.g., vessels being empty or full et cetera in some infinite context or some other gibberish that has no real-world cosmological application. He seems to copy and paste a lot as there appears to be some deficit in his mental capacity/cognition in forming his own ideas/concepts.

He continually goes on about his "authentic Kabbalah" - hollow words. Where's the beef? He appears to mostly focus on expounding nitpicks that have nothing to do with Kabbalah because he lacks any serious revelatory knowledge or similar.

I suppose I've taken a piss on his sacred lineage, and we have now entered into full blown tantrum troll mode because his beliefs have now been compromised.

I have many Kabbalah/TOL threads here and elsewhere on sites that are much more active than this place; maybe I will even begin referring to them as "authentic Kabbalah" from now on. Whether you like it or not. I don't care.

Seriously dude, I could watch some drunk bum piss a Rorschach pattern in the snow and get more revelation from it than anything you've posted here.

So nobody is going to tell you that you can't do something? And if they do, you will prove them wrong? Well I'm telling you, you failed, get over it, or keep being a troll, whatever floats your boat.

Even better, why don't you enlighten us all with some of that "authentic Kabbalah" you keep going on about as it pertains to the Ain Soph Aur? No riddles and in plain English please as we do not speak Hebrew here, unless of course you don't understand it yourself.

[CCoburn]

The "Authentic" Master Ken


Master Kens' "Authentic" Worlds' Best Weapons Defense;
running parallel with Master Zirans' "authentic" Kabbalah

I think that about sums it up, but there's more to come.

[Ziran]

This Ziran person was quite congenial out-of-the-gate, and it was around the middle of October I believe when I questioned some of the concepts he was positing and he gradually progressed into complete 'troll-mode' from there as this had struck some sort of nerve so to speak.

It's true I was polite in the beginning. You repeatedly, for weeks, argued that what I was writing was illogical, irrational, incoherent while simulataneously ignoring your own faults in your own writing. The last straw was when you trottted out and name dropped "Big-Bang" as if that supported you, when in fact it doesn't. The "BigBang" is the opposite of your position.

The manner in which you did this, name-dropping was condescending and rude after ongoing condescension and preaching from a pulpit of ignorance as if you possess an inerrant holy-spirit.

After that happened, yes, my tone shifted. Now you're getting the horns. And you deserve it. You were acting like you own this thread. You were chased out of other venues, and now you've decided to setup a little chuch for yourself. It doesn't work that way. If that's what you want, start a blog.

Even better, why don't you enlighten us all with some of that "authentic Kabbalah" you keep going on about as it pertains to the Ain Soph Aur? No riddles and in plain English please as we do not speak Hebrew here, unless of course you don't understand it yourself.

I did, and I have been. You complained. As you stated, you cannot comprehend concepts that are too long and too complicated. This addiction you have to "nothingness" seems to have caused intellectual atrophy. Or perhaps you're just lazy.

I already gave you the plain english. Four words. You could not even handle four words.

First Kesser = "binary choice to create"

binary
choice
to
create


It doesn't get any more simple or straight forward than that. After reading the word Kesser, you went to look at an absolute mess of a tree-of-life diagram pretending that it was more clear than the four simple words above.

You would like to know about the Ein-Soph-Ohr?

Sure!

Ein-Soph-Ohr = ever-flowing-vitality.

ever
flowing
vitality

Three words. Can you handle it?

This ever-flow, called the "shefa", depending on kesser, can produce positive assertions or negative assertions. "Is" or "Is not".

Ok so far? It's super simple.

---

[Ziran]

You're over-compensating for your short comings. Regardless of your gender or how you identify, you're still waving it around with comments like this trying to pretend you're packing some heat. But we all know the truth.

Your posts about kabbalah are short too.

[CCoburn]

The last straw was when you trottted out and name dropped "Big-Bang" as if that supported you, when in fact it doesn't. The "BigBang" is the opposite of your position.

I've already written about it here everywhere. The time stamps prove it's before the fact. All of my references to singularities, dimensionless points, primordial points, nothing, expanding space, aethereal expansions et cetera. It's all Big Bang stuff ya dumbass troll.

Ziran just loves evoking me to correct his feeble-minded ass; I think he gets off on it. Why else? Is it maybe because he really is that dumb?

Right at the top of the search results:

The Big Bang theory says that the universe came into being from a single, unimaginably hot and dense point (aka, a singularity) more than 13 billion years ago. It didn't occur in an already existing space. Rather, it initiated the expansion—and cooling—of space itself.

Anything sound familiar there you fruitcake? I'd like to think that the readership is at least this smart to know that you are purposely conveying misinformation for attention, argument, or some attempt at being inflammatory - typical troll behavior.

Maybe you're not a troll; maybe you just really are that dumb. It's like, is it live, or is it Memorex? Maybe a little of both, who knows.

[Ziran]

I've already written about it here everywhere. The time stamps prove it's before the fact. All of my references to singularities, dimensionless points, primordial points, nothing, expanding space, aethereal expansions et cetera.

The problem is, you are including "nothing", but omitting "everything". That's the problem. It's evident in your writing because you claimed that "nothingness must be magical because everything comes from it" {paraphrasing}. But, "everything" doesn't come from it. It was there already. That's the BigBangTheory.

Again. For clarity.

You said that "nothing (technically Ein) is at the core". That's not BigBang. You're missing "everything" which must be included in the singularity.

I said that Ein and Ein-Soph are partners that are always and forever united, but never cancel each other out. That's the BigBang.

The BigBang actually matches what I've written. And what you've brought is ... incomplete as usual.

Right at the top of the search results:

The Big Bang theory says that the universe came into being from a single, unimaginably hot and dense point (aka, a singularity) more than 13 billion years ago. It didn't occur in an already existing space. Rather, it initiated the expansion—and cooling—of space itself.

The quote says: "Space (Nothingness, more or less)" is included in the singularity along with "The Universe (Everything, more or less)" in a dense unimaginably hot point.

That's precisely what I described. What you described is 50% correct. As usual.

You're working so hard, doing backflips to lift up "nothingness" as the ideal. It's so silly.

Why not place the round peg in the round hole?
Why not place the square peg in the square hole?
These concepts are not very difficult.

If they are considered, as intended, as a partnership, it's smooth as silk.

"... Forcing Ein to be Supreme ... "

---