The Tree of Life

[CCoburn]

The Kabbalistic diagrams you are using have no real-world cosmological application, or at least are presented incorrectly. The three-dimensional rendition presented on a 2D surface makes much more sense as it has real-world parallels.

Your models substantially lack merit if they do not align with any contemporary models and if it not for some "alignments" that I had observed in the first place I likely would not have even ventured down this 'Kabbalistic road'.

And I have to cut this one short now as my friend is back to unbox this new mattress that was recently delivered.

[Ziran]

Your models substantially lack merit if they do not align with any contemporary models.

Band-wagon fallacy. Arguing from ignorance. Flat-earth thinking. Just because it's contemporary and popular doesn't make it correct. These are teachings which are passed on teacher to student, verbally. That's what it means to be occult.

Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they're wrong. Just because they are not useful for you, doesn't mean they have no use. If you are bound to a cosmological model, that's fine, but there is "AIN" in those models. What you've written simply doesn't work.

The point is: the system of authentic kabalah is consistent, logical, and coherent. What you have written is inconsistent, illogical, and incoherent. It doesn't seem as if you know kabalah of any sort, contemporary or not. Your judgement on the diagrams I brought has zero value at all. Even if they are not contemporary, what I am bringing is not self-contradictory. If the choice is between contemporary and contradictory vs. ancient and consistent. I think the vast majority will choose ancient over contemporary especially in an occult context.

You have claimed that root = not-a-root.
You have claimed that there is something prior in a timeless state.
You have claimed there is some sort of continuous ebb and flow in this timeless state.

None of that is logical, consistent, or coherent.

---

[Amor]

The Kabbalistic diagrams you are using have no real-world cosmological application, or at least are presented incorrectly....

To be fair the 2D Tree can be found across the planet at scales from localities, islands, continents and beyond, marking out the locations of sephirotic vortices.

I started with the island of Iona. A hint in that case is that the humans live on the lower sephiroth

That is not always true on larger landmasses.

Malkuth and Keter are often in the ocean, perhaps to make life easier for humans

Sometimes a downwards Tree will turn over to face the heavens. I have seen that twice. That changes the psyche of the human population so that they interact much more with the global society

[CCoburn]

Your models substantially lack merit if they do not align with any contemporary models.

Band-wagon fallacy. Arguing from ignorance. Flat-earth thinking. Just because it's contemporary and popular doesn't make it correct. These are teachings which are passed on teacher to student, verbally. That's what it means to be occult.

All you have done with your images posted here is presented some two-dimensional diagrams combined with some fringe terminology and a bunch of mystical jargon that has no real-world application. The images in no way convey any actual cosmic anabolism.

The spheres need to be concentric. Every sphere contains every other sphere but of a different manner. In this way the model actually aligns with a current cosmology. I would presume that your images are primarily for informational purposes with the exclusion of 'actuality' unless coupled with a proper explanation which I don't believe I've seen thus far.

I don't have my own diagram but this one gets the idea across. I have seen some with Keter as the outermost layer, but I would place the first in the center as a 'seed' so to speak and enumerated as they expand outward.

Now we have a diagram that actually aligns with an expanding universe:

[CCoburn]

Band-wagon fallacy. Arguing from ignorance. Flat-earth thinking. Just because it's contemporary and popular doesn't make it correct.

If you actually think that the above is tantamount to or even comparable to well established scientific theories and models then you are beyond redemption, but I think we knew that anyway.

Let's all just listen to Master Ziran because if he asserts he is right and thinks that he is right then obviously and unmistakably he must be right. Everybody must be right; how could anyone even be wrong in such a context?

[Ziran]

---

Apologies for the long post. You seem to require a lot of help staying on point, so, I need to retype and restate the context of my previous reply and the reasons that the diagrams I brought are appropriate and useful.

All you have done with your images posted here is presented some two-dimensional diagrams combined with some fringe terminology and a bunch of mystical jargon that has no real-world application.

1) The request was made asking about the reflective quality of reality. ( It's kind of a silly question considering my avatar ). You asked if I acknowledged this reflective quality, and asked why it was missing from what I had brought to the thread. My response was: I do acknowledge it. I've written about it here. Here are some diagrams representing it.

The diagrams do represent it, but, as I stated, they are not perfect. No single diagram or model is going to be complete. What I brought accomplishes what is needed to answer YOUR question. I searched and found other similar diagrams online. It's good to see that what I was taught is not completely lacking internet confirmation ( links below ).

The problem with those other diagrams is that they have the false linkages skipping yesod and most omit the k'lipoth. Both of those details are important for answering your question. It's good that I brought these diagrams **before** you asked about it. It shows I'm not making things up and adapting as needed on the fly. I'm consistent.

(note: these diagrams are not perfect, but, they support what I brought )

https://www.chicagojewishnews.com/explo ... -kabbalah/
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nd_culture (pg.43)
https://www.tumbex.com/ambrose88.tumblr ... 2966590162
https://www.tumblr.com/illuminatizeitge ... k-side-the

2) The terminology is not fringe. You can't read hebrew apparently.

3) Yes, the concentric nested circle representation is valid and important. Both models are happening simultaneously. I described this here: viewtopic.php?p=530509#p530509

4) The nested concentric circles do not express the reflective relationship between malchus and kesser. That is an important concept for answering the question you asked demanded. "What does it mean that it might appear that way from assiyah?" The "tree" diagram is better suited for that question compared to the nested circles. This thread is titled "tree of life". A "tree of life" diagram is proper in this context.

5) Your objection: "have no real world purpose" was addressed here: viewtopic.php?p=530368#p530368

6) I've brought a lot more than jargon. All one needs to do is go back to page 3 of this thread and read my posts there to confirm it. I have been avoiding jargon as much as possible intentionally.

7) You asked to "wipe the board clean" and start with a simple concise defintition for "AIN". So, that's where we are in the discussion. The board has been wiped clean. We are starting with a blank slate. It's an excellent place to start. We have not been able to make progress beyond "AIN" through no fault of my own. I brought you a simple, straight forward, and clear defintion.

We should be able to move on, but, you are still holding to conceptions of "AIN" and "AIN-SOPH" which are self-contradictory. Based on your writing, your objections, and the questions you have asked demanded, maybe the discussion of "AIN and AIN-SOPH" should be tabled in favor of understanding kesser ( keter )?

In order to move forward,
any and all contradictory defintions need to be excluded and replaced.

Just because it's contemporary and popular doesn't make it correct.

If you actually think that the above is tantamount to or even comparable to well established scientific theories and models then you are beyond redemption, but I think we knew that anyway.

If the objection is: "it's not contemporary", that is not an evaluation of merit. It's silly to exclude information in an "occult" context because it is old and rare.

Your own writing about AIN does not match the "established scientific theories".

Let's all just listen to Master Ziran because if he asserts he is right and thinks that he is right then obviously and unmistakably he must be right. Everybody must be right; how could anyone even be wrong in such a context?

If the "contemporary" version, or your own fabricated version, of kabalah contains contradictions, doesn't it make sense to roll back to the ancient, original, ... drumroll ... authentic version? Once the "old ways" are understood properly, then, it makes sense to choose whether to adopt it, adapt it, abandon it, etc.

I ask again: Spida, what makes you think you know and understand kabalah?

You balked at a 4 word english defintion for kesser/keter. Come on. At a certain point, it makes sense to defer to someone who knows a lot more than you. Calling me "master" in jest doesn't bother me, but, it's rather foolish at this point to pretend that I don't know kabalah a lot better then you, and, most important, I'm open to sharing it.

I'm open to sharing it, not as a guru, but as a friend. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to figuratively kick you in your butt, if you stick your head in the sand, or if you setup a virtual pulpit and start preaching nonsense at me. Example: root = not-a-root.

---

[CCoburn]

1) The request was made asking about the reflective quality of reality. ( It's kind of a silly question considering my avatar ). You asked if I acknowledged this reflective quality, and asked why it was missing from what I had brought to the thread. My response was: I do acknowledge it. I've written about it here. Here are some diagrams representing it.

The diagrams do represent it, but, as I stated, they are not perfect. No single diagram or model is going to be complete. What I brought accomplishes what is needed to answer YOUR question. I searched and found other similar diagrams online. It's good to see that what I was taught is not completely lacking internet confirmation ( links below ).

The problem with those other diagrams is that they have the false linkages skipping yesod and most omit the k'lipoth. Both of those details are important for answering your question. It's good that I brought these diagrams **before** you asked about it. It shows I'm not making things up and adapting as needed on the fly. I'm consistent.

I was talking about the reflective nature of "REALITY"(or existence) in general; NOT the tree reflecting itself. I was talking about core cosmological processes and patterns that are 'reflected' analogically as evolution progresses through the eons, and I'm sure as hell not going to gather them all together in a nice neat little package for you right here right now when I've already written about them here and elsewhere hundreds of times already. The redundancy requirements of this thread are really getting old, but honestly, it's not just THIS thread.

Maybe the thread titles could have been more carefully selected as this is a mixed-bag of source material filtered according to my own ideology of which Qabalah/Kabbalah is a part to 'some degree'. Your mindset seems to be predominantly closed to all but your own version of this Kabbalah that you are referencing.

I did have a look at the diagrams, and if I wasn't so busy correcting the errs of your narrow mindset then I might've gotten to them sooner.

I do see where there are two paths that go from the 7th and 8th to the 10th and in this process go outside of and skip the 9th. It does look a little weird and maybe I do like the structure of your tree moreso in this regard, and maybe you consider this paramount.

You've been asking about the Ain a lot lately. In the diagram I posted it would be outside of the final sphere. It is negative existence, and although it is represented as 'space' it is NOT that. Remember the neti neti? Not this, not this, and NOT SPACE.

The Ain is nothing(negative existence), and the Ain Soph is no limit of this nothing(limitless potential), and from within the limitless potential of negative existence emerges the limitless light to become one. From the first sphere to the 10th is positive existence and beyond that is negative existence i.e. NOTHING.

There was a time when I had a choice between ever flowing time and a rhythm like that of breath or the beating of a pulsating heart, so I went with the latter.

It comes and it goes, it ebbs and it flows.

[CCoburn]

The two paths in question do create a couple of geometric pattern repetitions that are repeated from 1, 2, 3, and 6 above. The latter not skipping any middle pillar sefirot(excluding Da'at).

I'm not currently resonating with the "funnel" terminology but the name of Yesod is Foundation and in the concentric diagram I provided IT LITERALLY IS the foundation of the 10th; it might follow that all paths should go through it.

Also in that diagram. All sefirot would have to in some manner go through 9 to get to 10, so a metaphorical "funnel" I suppose could be an 'interpretation' but nothing that appears evident actually or diagrammatically. Maybe the obscurity adds mystery and depth, and I tend to go for the more realistic and straightforward terminology.

[CCoburn]

Even the "magic" itself that you scoff at is an analogical reflection of the most ancient of ancients. Something from nothing and back again - PRESTO - ABRA C(H)ADABRA - now you see it now you don't, and back again. Like the mysterious metaphorical cosmological pendulum moving in mysterious ways, and not just BECAUSE you don't understand it, but because there are just some things that are NEVER meant to be understood, unless of course you're the Carrot Top of the occult pulling "funnels" out your ass. Yes yes indeed there is always more, or at least as much as there can be.

For not even the negative existence itself can restrain the limitless light that is thee, the thing that AIN not be, for it is, again and again and again, ad infinitum, for all time and none, to redeem the potential of all things FROM NOTHING ABSOLUTELY - A DEAD ETERNITY.

The ALAKAZAM of the 'quantum fluctuator' where the microcosm becomes a macrocosm - FROM NOTHING AND NOWHERE(relatively speaking).

[CCoburn]

There is this theory called Cyclic Cosmological Conformance or just CCC for short. I know very little about it, but it did get me thinking about "cosmic cycles".

There is this quote: God is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Which somehow includes a standard model of physics, General Relativity, and Quantum Theory.

The problem is and has always been discrepancies between the large and small(the quote).

I watch these theoretical physicists debate over these different theories which isn't much of a cut above what me and the "Master Ziran" have been doing here, although the context I have been providing is more in line with their discussion as I hear nothing about boundless linear time(although I have).

I feel that any original cosmic theory worth its salt will be continually reflected throughout the eons of time with analogical evidence of its existence everywhere and not only in an individuals mind.

When I think about fractal geometry; take a tree for example. It has a root source and as it develops initially its branches resemble later development of the whole i.e. pattern or process repetition - cosmic redundancy on a larger scale; a sample segment of the tree resembles the entire tree itself.

Nature is all about repetition of patterns to create larger patterns whether it be trees, land masses, clouds, or mountains which is tantamount to a divine fractal geometry from the mind of the creator.

Which brings me to WAVES. The universe could be like a cosmic ocean where the expansion is omnidirectional and in lieu of a "big crunch" or contraction. It could be that these cosmic waves that emanate space and time may just eventually dissipate or diminish into nothing.

The primordial would serve as a sort of beacon or transmitter of these cosmic waves and the thing about light energy or photons is that they don't perceive spacetime in the same way as a casual observer. These cosmic waves could be nothing more than informational, much in the same way that typical EM radiation serves as carrier waves for audio and video.

These cosmic waves could even be thought as the LOGOS itself which is the word(or information) from God as to how the universe is to be constructed.

Throughout the eons of time these cosmic waves come and go, they ebb and they flow, like the tides and the waxing and waning of the Moon.

[Ziran]

---

The Ain is nothing(negative existence), and the Ain Soph isno limit of this nothing(limitless potential)

  Ain is unqualified negation.  It is infinite in its negation.  Ain-Soph is not "no limit of this nothing", that would be "Ain-Soph-Ain"  Grammatically it's called a construct relationship.  Hebrew and aramaic do not have "apostrophe-s" to show possession.  Instead the possessor follows the object of possession.  Ain-Soph of Ain, Ain's Ain-Soph, would be Ain-Soph-Ain, or Ain-Soph Shel Ain.  And this ignores the simple fact that Ain-Soph has no limitation and "no limit of this nothing" is a limitation.  "Limitless potential" would work.  "No limit OF this nothing" does not work.

Ain-Soph is literally everything with only one exception.   That's what it means.

from within the limitless potential of negative existence emerges the limitless light to become one. From the first sphere to the 10th is positive existence and beyond that is negative existence i.e. NOTHING.

How does infinite light and positive existence come from "limitless potential of negative existence"?  Negative existence comes from "limitless potential of negative existence".   Positive existence does not come from negative existence.  What you wrote had ( hee-hee ) potential when you used the phrase "limitless potential", but, it fell apart when trying to force the supremacy of negative existence.  Square peg ... round hole... yet again.

Limitless light and positive existence does not come from limitless potential of negative existence.

I was talking about core cosmological processes

Spida, I know what you were talking about, but there are no processes like that in a "time-less state".  This is the same error repeated over and over.  If the discussion is about the tree of life beyond assiyah, then, there are no cosmological processes which are not simultaneous.

Further, you were demanding an explanation to my assertion that kesser ( or keter, or kether ) might appear as a singularity from the persepective of assiyah.  The reflection of malchus-and-kesser is needed to explain that.  It is a complicated idea.  It does take time and many words to describe it.  Bringing the diagrams serves two purposes, but, it's crystal clear that your point of view is stuck in assiyah, the material world, because you keep flipping back to time-bound language when attempting to discuss a time-less state.

The redundancy requirements of this thread are really getting old, but honestly, it's not just THIS thread.

Spida, you keep flipping back and forth between attempting to discuss a time-less state, and using time-bound language to describe it.  If you would remain consistent, and simply stop making the same mistakes, they would not need to be repeatedly identified and presented to you.

Maybe the thread titles could have been more carefully selected as this is a mixed-bag of source material filtered according to my own ideology of which Qabalah/Kabbalah is a part to 'some degree'. Your mindset seems to be predominantly closed to all but your own version of this Kabbalah that you are referencing.

It's not closed minded to to hold you accountable to your own standards.  You keep contradicting yourself.  There was no "ain" in the BigBangTheory.  There is no "prior" in a timeless state.  Root =/= not-a-root.  Your own standards were, if it can't explained simply, then it is not understood.
  

I do see where there are two paths that go from the 7th and 8th to the 10th and in this process go outside of and skip the 9th. It does look a little weird and maybe I do like the structure of your tree moreso in this regard, and maybe you consider this paramount.

The system doesn't operate consistently as a whole if everything is not flowing through yesod.  That is yesod's function.  There are good reasons for the other style of the diagram, but, I'll skip that for now.

You've been asking about the Ain a lot lately. In the diagram I posted it would be outside of the final sphere. It is negative existence, and although it is represented as 'space' it is NOT that. Remember the neti neti? Not this, not this, and NOT SPACE.

I am NOT asking about "Ain".  I understand it very well and very clearly.  It doesn't fit into the BigBangTheory in the manner which you are using it.  I'm not asking about Ain. I'm asking you to hold to your own standards.   If "Ain" as you define it, and it fits within the BigBangTheory, you should be able to explain it simply and clearly.  I'm not asking for nor expecting a direct equivilence.  At the very least there should be some correspondence.  So far you haven't brought any. 

The closest correspondence ( not equivilence ) for "Ain" in the BigBangTheory is the "space" which is expanding from the singularity.  "Space" is in quotes because, as I already wrote and you agree, it's not empty space.  It's not "nothingness".  None the less, this is the closest best fit for the concept "Ain" in the BigBangTheory.  This doesn't fit "your" model because, you have positioned "Ain" prior to the singularity which you have linked up with kesser ( or keter, or kether ) and you have declared kesser ( or keter, or kether ) is a manifestation of "God", as constrasted with an emanation of "God".  "God" is in quotes because the word "God" carries a lot of baggage with it especially if it is coming from christian indoctrination. 

The word "your" is in quotes above because, technically, it's not your model to position "Ain" appearing above and beyond and prior to the kesser ( or keter, or kether ).  It's the model that you're using.  I understand that you're trying to make sense of a system presented to you, diagrams which exist on the internet, books with woefully incomplete information.  Neccessity is the mother of invention.   But, there is a kesser ( or keter, or kether ) before all of that. There is a "first" kesser ( or keter, or kether ) which is before ain-soph and ain and ain-soph-aur.

One of the most important concepts which I think is missing from your "tool box" is that there is more than one kesser. The common diagrams found on the internet and in books do not show the complette picture with multiple versions of the tree-of-life flosing into each other. That's another benefit of showing you diagrams which are more complete.

There was a time when I had a choice between ever flowing time and a rhythm like that of breath or the beating of a pulsating heart, so I went with the latter.

It comes and it goes, it ebbs and it flows.

Time does not come and go.  But that doesn't matter.  Spida, we are discussing a time-less state.  Those are your words.  "Time-less".  There is no rhythm, there is no ebb and flow in a time-less state.   You keep flip-flopping between discussing the "time-less" and the "time-bound".  The point, Spida, the point is, your model doesn't work outside of assiyah, the material world, where time is flowing.

The two paths in question do create a couple of geometric pattern repetitions that are repeated from 1, 2, 3, and 6 above. The latter not skipping any middle pillar sefirot(excluding Da'at).

I'm not currently resonating with the "funnel" terminology but the name of Yesod is Foundation and in the concentric diagram I provided IT LITERALLY IS the foundation of the 10th; it might follow that all paths should go through it.

Also in that diagram. All sefirot would have to in some manner go through 9 to get to 10, so a metaphorical "funnel" I suppose could be an 'interpretation' but nothing that appears evident actually or diagrammatically. Maybe the obscurity adds mystery and depth, and I tend to go for the more realistic and straightforward terminology.

Realistic straight forward terminology?  Spida, you posted about "abra-cah-dabra", "poof", and a "quantum fluctuator".  Those are not realistic straight forward terms and concepts.  Pah-lease.

It doesn't need to resonate with you in order to be understood why kesser ( or keter, or kether ) would appear to be a singularity when, infact, it is not and does not function in that way.  It doesn't need to resonate with you to be understood why the "kav", aka the "shefa", aka the "ain-soph-aur" would appear to be coming from "ain" from the perspective of assiyah.  That's the point I'm making.  If you don't like it, fine.   I have explained it clearly.

From the perspective of assiyah, a time-bound finite existence, kesser ( or keter, or kether ) can appear as a singularity coming from "ain" because assiyah is surrounded by "ain" with one exception where the "kav" is emanating from the the realms beyond it.  Further, it is easy to mistake this emanation as "God" especially for those coming from a christian background.  It is the shechina, aka malchus, aka the divine presence, aka the face of god.  Some imagine it as an angel, but that would be a false conception, in general, because it has no will of its own.

There is no mystery or obscurity in the authentic original kabalah.  It might be mysterious and obscure to outsiders, but that doesn't mean it's that way to those of us who understand it.  It's complicated.  There's many moving pieces to keep track of, but, it's not obscure and mysterious.

The problem, among others, of netzach and hod skipping yesod is that yesod is no longer functioning as the foundation.  Imagine building a house where two of ten of the supporting pillars are not attached the foundation.  That is a very poor design.  Kesser ( or keter, or kether ), which are the choices being made for the form, function, and scope of the creations of the realm "below" it, always and forever are including yesod as the foundation for those choices of form, function and scope.  Kesser ( or keter, or kether ) cannot be accurately presented to the realm "below" it if any of the vessels ( the sephirot ) are not included in yesod. "Below" is in quotes, because, they're not actually "below".

Where it gets confusing is considering what happens for a creation when the scope of a form and/or function is empty.  In those extreme and rare cases, yes, it does make sense, in a way, for the flow through the vessels of the tree-of-life to seem as if they are skipping yesod.  But that's not what's happening at all.  In that case, the vessel or vessels are empty and those [/i]empty[/i] vessels are flowing into yesod and being presented and actualized by malchus.

Let's look at an example:

"Strict judgement", which is the middah "din", is produced when gevurah is completely full, and all the other emotive vessels are empty.  Gevruah is still brought together with chesed in tiferes, but, tiferes and chesed are empty.  Netzach and hod might be blended into it to either moderate the strict judgement or exaggerate it, but it could be that both of these are completely empty as well.  In this extreme case, where all the others are empty, no action is produced, but that doesn't mean that the vessels themself are somehow divided, seperated, or missing.   

Taking this specific example, an event, which is a creation of pure gevurah, the middah "din", when it is presented and actualized via malchus, it IS the kesser for that specific event, for that specific creation.  And.  That kesser is the malchus from the realm beyond it.  That malchus is the presentation and actualization of a kesser which is a choice of form, function, and scope.  I'm using the word "beyond" because they are nesting chains of spheres of influence.  There is a flow, but not a 2 dimensional flow.

You mentioned the "first" "second" and "third" of the sephirot being reflected in the others...  they aren't  It's just kesser and malchus.  Kesser ( or keter, or kether ) in a way is complicated because it is simultaneously included and disjointed.  Other than that it's a simple concept.  The "next" two are more complicated.  "Next" is in quotes because all of it is happening simultaneously.  I need to keep restating this simultaneity because this is easily forgotten even though it is vital to keep it in mind.

Even the "magic" itself that you scoff at is an analogical reflection of the most ancient of ancients. Something from nothing and back again - PRESTO - ABRA C(H)ADABRA - now you see it now you don't, and back again. Like the mysterious metaphorical cosmological pendulum moving in mysterious ways, and not just BECAUSE you don't understand it, but because there are just some things that are NEVER meant to be understood, unless of course you're the Carrot Top of the occult pulling "funnels" out your ass. Yes yes indeed there is always more, or at least as much as there can be.

For not even the negative existence itself can restrain the limitless light that is thee, the thing that AIN not be, for it is, again and again and again, ad infinitum, for all time and none, to redeem the potential of all things FROM NOTHING ABSOLUTELY - A DEAD ETERNITY.

The ALAKAZAM of the 'quantum fluctuator' where the microcosm becomes a macrocosm - FROM NOTHING AND NOWHERE(relatively speaking).

I don't scoff at magic.  I scoff at the inclusion of the word "magic" because it indicates there are gaps in your understanding which are being filled with the catch-all term, "magic". If you understood it, you would not need to the use the word "magic". Your own standards require being able to explain your ideology simply and clearly.

The ancient of ancients ( the ancient of days? atik yomin? ) is not something from nothing, or a pendulum or any of that.  Those words are out of context.  Those words and concepts only fit in the material world. Atik yomin is far beyond the material realm.

It's ironic that you invoke mystery when it suits you, but reject it if it's subject matter beyond your knowledgebase.

A 'quantum fluctuator'?  Seriously?  What is that?  A flux capacitor?

---

[Ziran]

There is this theory called Cyclic Cosmological Conformance or just CCC for short. I know very little about it, but it did get me thinking about "cosmic cycles".

There is this quote: God is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Which somehow includes a standard model of physics, General Relativity, and Quantum Theory.

An infinite sphere? I object your honor, why not an infinite cube? Why not any infiinite shape of infinite dimensions? Limiting it to a sphere is arbitrary and silly.

The problem is and has always been discrepancies between the large and small(the quote).

I watch these theoretical physicists debate over these different theories which isn't much of a cut above what me and the "Master Ziran" have been doing here, although the context I have been providing is more in line with their discussion as I hear nothing about boundless linear time(although I have).

I feel that any original cosmic theory worth its salt will be continually reflected throughout the eons of time with analogical evidence of its existence everywhere and not only in an individuals mind.

It is what it is.... it's in assiyah.

[szie=125]When I think about fractal geometry; take a tree for example. It has a root source and as it develops initially its branches resemble later development of the whole i.e. pattern or process repetition - cosmic redundancy on a larger scale; a sample segment of the tree resembles the entire tree itself.[/size]

The beginning of a tree is a seed. The seed contains all the plans for the tree that can be produced from it. The seed would be keser. But it still needs rain, sun, soil, space to grow where it won't get stomped or eaten...

Nature is all about repetition of patterns to create larger patterns whether it be trees, land masses, clouds, or mountains which is tantamount to a divine fractal geometry from the mind of the creator.

Which brings me to WAVES. The universe could be like a cosmic ocean where the expansion is omnidirectional and in lieu of a "big crunch" or contraction. It could be that these cosmic waves that emanate space and time may just eventually dissipate or diminish into nothing.

The primordial would serve as a sort of beacon or transmitter of these cosmic waves and the thing about light energy or photons is that they don't perceive spacetime in the same way as a casual observer. These cosmic waves could be nothing more than informational, much in the same way that typical EM radiation serves as carrier waves for audio and video.

These cosmic waves could even be thought as the LOGOS itself which is the word(or information) from God as to how the universe is to be constructed.

Throughout the eons of time these cosmic waves come and go, they ebb and they flow, like the tides and the waxing and waning of the Moon.

Nature is in assiyah. If the waves are supposed to the be the "logos", the "logos" is emanating from beyond assiyah where there are no "waves". Waves exist in assiyah but not beyond it. Did you know the "logos" is malchus? If the "logos" ebbed and flowed, then all of assiyah would revert back to the source then be recreated. All of it. Gone. Then back again. Ebb. Flow. Gone. Back. All of it. Does that match what is observable in nature?

Regarding the "logos" the "word" of God. It's ongoing per King David. I'm not asking you to believe it, but, if you are invoking the "word" of God, it's not a cosmic wave.

Psalm 119:89

לעולם יהוה דברך נצב בשמים׃

For ever, O Lord, your word is fixed in heaven.

[CCoburn]

@Novelist Ziran

You really should reduce the length of your posts; if you have that much to say then please create two or more posts to reduce the cumbersome nature of quoting them.

And again, from the very first sentence of your very first paragraph:

"Ain is unqualified negation."

And also again, from the Jewish to English Lexicon:

Ein/Ain

DEFINITIONS
adv., interj. None; we/I/you don't have any; there is none.

LANGUAGES OF ORIGIN
Modern Hebrew
ETYMOLOGY
אין ein - "there is no" or "none"

Observe how 'simple' the definition of "Ain" is here, or should we now quibble over the semantics of "unqualified"?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and translate "none" as being synonymous with "nothing" where some definitions actually do that anyway, therefore, "Ain" equates to "nothing" and "Ain Soph" would then be "no limit" of this "nothing", or, "no limit of nothing"; also, the "limitless potential" of this "nothing".

All this is saying basically 'Master Fruitcake' is that God(the light: Ain Soph Aur) is without limit and is not bound by any physical or temporal dimensions.

I'm not trying to define the "Ain" as equivalent to the Ain Soph Aur. You could say that the three are attributes of God; you need all three and if you omit one or more then you are basically omitting the nature of God from the equation.

This should begin to cause you to become aware that this "nothing" is not what you likely perceive it to be.

Don't fret though, nobody makes the first jump, and some will never make it at all.

[CCoburn]

Ain-Soph is not "no limit of this nothing", that would be "Ain-Soph-Ain" Grammatically it's called a construct relationship.

The Ain Soph Aur itself is a "construct". It has three fundamental components; the first is being stated as a cosmological negation - the inverse of space and time - which makes sense because it's pre-expansion. The Ain existing in isolation is tantamount to 'no existence' with zero potential which would result in a dead eternity.

The "Ain Soph" is an addition to the "construct"; the Ain is reiterated because it states that it is a 'root property' of what is to follow. Ain is an initial and default context that hints strongly as to the true nature of existence. With the addition of the "Soph" you are in fact augmenting the 'nature' of the Ain as "limitless potential" of this "nothing".

BUT, the limitless potential of the Ain Soph never comes to fruition in the absence of the third element of the construct which, as above, also results in a "dead eternity". This does appear paradoxical and renders the Ain Soph minus the "Aur" as equivalent to the Ain which is why I say you NEED all three, so, can you really be justified in stating the Ain Soph as "limitless potential" without the Aur? I don't think so.

This is why it makes more sense to look at these three as individual properties of pre-existence, or, you could say that the Ain is an initial(bare bones) 'context' of the divine much in the same way our four-dimensional spacetime is a context for us creatures.

The Ain Soph itself must contain a pre-emergent or self-begotten aspect of the divine or else you could not say it has limitless potential as that is a divine attribute as opposed to the Ain or 'nothing'.

Attributes of the divine:

0. It's initial context is a spatial and temporal negation.
1. It has limitless potential.
2. It is the cosmic light that emerges from 0.

0 is a contextual property.
1 is a passive property.
2 is an active property.

You could even omit 0 and just say that the divine is the "cosmic light" of "limitless potential" and that we don't even know what its context is, or that we'll just keep that one to ourselves to make it easier for the mundane to comprehend - of which aspects of the current thread being a case in point.

[Ziran]

from the Jewish to English Lexicon:

Ein/Ain - DEFINITIONS: adv., interj. None; we/I/you don't have any; there is none.[/size]

"There is none" <--- It's a perfect match for what I wrote. Unqualified negation.

Observe how 'simple' the definition of "Ain" is here, or should we now quibble over the semantics of "unqualified"?

Yes, I am fully aware of your necessity for simple. Here's another simple definition from a published dictionary.

the Ain Soph is no limit of this nothing

Good luck finding any defintion anywhere to agree with this.

Because Ain is unqualified negation, this defintion you have manufactured is redundant to what Ain is already doing. That's the point of specifying "unqualified". It shows your redundancy.

from within the limitless potential of negative existence emerges the limitless light to become one.

From within assiyah, the material world, there is a gap in the negative-existence ( ein ) and ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) is flowing from beyond, pushing out the negative-existence ( ein ), creating a bubble of positive-existence ( from ein-soph ) within it. Assiyah, the material world, is the result of the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) always and forever flushing out the the negative existence ( ein ) while simultaneously fillling it from the nearly infinite pool of positive-existence ( ein-soph ) .

However, assiyah, the material world, is constructed of both postive-existence ( from ein-soph ) and negative-existence ( ein ). This is why there is an ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) sustaining it. Each and every"thing" is coming from both negative existence ( ein ) and positive existence ( ein-soph ) but the negative-existence ( ein ) is always and forever subjugated to the positive-existence ( from ein-soph ) and the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ). It's not positive/negative in balance. This is an important concept, because, the positive is always and forever over-powering the negative. On a cosmic scale, It is wise to partner up with the positive. But, this is not apparent if a person is stuck in assiyah, in the bubble of the material world. From there, it appears that negative-existence ( ein ) is all encompassing, because, it is surrounding every"thing" and the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) appears to be coming from it. This is an illusion. The negative-existence ( ein ) is on the surface of every"thing", but, there is more happening beyond assiyah and beneath the surface which is not observable from within the "bubble".

Another good analogy is a vessel of clay being formed on a spinning wheel. The ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ), like the hand of the potter, is pressing down on the negative-existence ( ein ) like clay on a spinning wheel causing the negative-existence ( ein ) to hollow out into a vessel. But for this, it's better to imagine it like blowing up a balloon

There's a little spout at the top where air, the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) is coming in. Except, you, my dear, are stuck in the center of the balloon. When you gaze around you, all you see are the walls of the balloon and a tiny gap at the top where air ( ever-flowing-vitality ) is entering the balloon keeping it always and forever inflated. Naturally you have come to the conclusion that the walls surrounding the balloon are the source for the ever-flowing-vitality, because, all you can see from inside the bubble are the walls and the flow which is seeming to be coming from those walls.

From within the balloon, one cannot see that there are nearly infinite balloons one within the other. Each of these balloons is being filled and is over-flowing and filling another in a nested chain. But from the perspective stuck in assiyah, all one can know are the walls of the balloon. If one is enslaved by a desire to know they will reject any idea that is beyond what is known from within the balloon. That, Spida, is where you are right now.

"Ain" equates to "nothing"

... "NEGATING" ... As you wrote previously "negative existence". Existence is an ongoing action.

"Ain Soph" would then be "no limit" of this "nothing"

Nope. You're adding an undeclared word at the end. Grammatically this would be "ain-soph" in a construct relationship with "ain". It's 3 words, not 2.

Ain = negating
Soph = limit or end

"Ain Soph" = Negating Limit

"Ain Soph Ain" = Negating Limit of Negating or No limit of this nothing

God(the light: Ain Soph Aur) is without limit and is not bound by any physical or temporal dimensions.

Mostly correct, but incomplete. Literallly.

According to kabalah, God is not bound to any physical or temporal dimensions and is complete, literally lacking nothing.

The equivilance of God with a never-ending-light is NOT Kabalah. That sounds Christian. Your indoctrination is showing... The highest order name of God in kabalah, I cannot stress strongly enough it is just a name, is Ein-Soph. Your own source the Jewish Lexicon has this, as well as the published dictionary.

Regarding the Christian assumption that God is light, Moses disagrees:

ישב בסתר עליון בצל שדי יתלונן׃
אמר ליהוה מחסי ומצודתי אלהי אבטח־בו׃

He who dwells in the secret place of the most High, who abides under the shadow of the Almighty,
Will say to the Lord, My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust,

You could say that the three are attributes of God

YOU can say what ever you want. It's evident that the majority of it is ignorant and incomplete.

This should begin to cause you to become aware that this "nothing" is not what you likely perceive it to be.

Among other things, you don't know how I percieve it.

Returning to the analogy of the balloon which is being filled. You, Spida, are stuck in the balloon.

In order to free your mind, project out beyond assiyah. But, there's a catch. In projecting beyond assiyah, one will encounter nearly infinite negations unless they are extremely lucky, blessed, or knowledgable. These nearly infinite negations ARE still part of assiyah, the material world. They are the walls of the balloon, the material "shells" that surround every"thing". These "walls" or "shells" or "k'lipoth" are "Ain". Most who embark beyond assiyah get caught up in these nearly infinite negations. Whether or not this is a problem depends on what the individual is seeking.

There is a version of "magic" which can be coerced from these nearly infinite negations. If someone is interested in this sort of "magic" then their journey can end there. Technically they didn't journey anywhere. In some ways this is good. The "magic" they seek is all around them, in assiyah, in the material world. This is part of the incentive for ignoring anything happening beyond assiyah. There is also more incentive. There is another version of "magic" which is completely depending on the caster's belief. It is a version of "stage magic" except the performer is also the audience and they are fooling themself. If they can thoroughly delude themself, then they can work a sort of "magic" and inspire themself. This is the most common form of "magic". It's "belief magic"... moving mountiains with faith, aka Chrstianity.

Both of these styles of "magic" are sympathetic to each other. They work well together, encourage each other, and support each other. That, dear Spida, is the strong incentive to deny anything which does not adhere to your own ideology. Whatever "magic" you might be knowingly or unknowingly working with is compromised by integrity and humility. This doesn't feel good. It reduces the feeling of being inspired.

Working with these nearly infinite negations and self-delusion of belief are both forms of "magic" which are easy and common from within assiyah, the material world. If that is a person's desire, then there is no need to depart from the material world. On the other hand, if the individual wants to understand and/or connect to the ever-flowing-vitality from the source of reality, then working with these nearly infinite negations is a distraction and a snare. One of the properties of these nearly infinite negations is they truly negate "the-truth". This means their nature is to impersonate, masquerade, and decieve. They are naturally antagonistic. Understanding this and applying it fully is an opportunity to "flip-the-script" and exploit these forces in a manner which is sympathetic to one's own purposes. This is one reason why integrity compromises this style of "magic". If you are inspired by Jesus, he is teaching this: "wise as a serpent, yet innocent as a dove."

This also explains why Qabbalah and many magicians only employ a tree-of-life concept with a single repetition with "Ain" as supreme. Put simply, it works, if one knows how to "work-it". They are seeking working with the "Ain", the nearly infinite negations, demons, for lack of a better word, but in many cases they don't realize it. None the less, working with the negations is not inherently bad or evil or wrong. As Jesus is teaching, it can be accomplished innocently for those who are cautious, precise, and asitute.

For those who are reckless, selfish, and lazy, it makes sense to stop seeking further and only work with these "shells", the "demons", the "K'lipoth", because, in a lot of ways, it's easy. It's much much easier than proceeding beyond assiyah, beyond the material world, but, it comes with a price.

There is an entire pyramid scheme of compounding hidden costs associated with working with the "shells", "demons", "K'lipoth", whatever one chooses to call them. Those who tempt others and convince others to consent to working with them receive a temporary reward. Deceiving others does not reduce the reward, in many cases it increases it, but the hidden costs increase even more. That's why it's good to clarify these matters in public, so that each individual can make an informed choice.

---

[Ziran]

The Ain Soph Aur itself is a "construct".

Sure. Without Limit of Light.

It has three fundamental components the first is being stated as a cosmological negation - the inverse of space and time - which makes sense because it's pre-expansion. The Ain existing in isolation is tantamount to 'no existence' with zero potential which would result in a dead eternity.

"the inverse of space and time" = Ain-HaTevah. This is Ain-Soph-Aur.

The "Ain Soph" is an addition to the "construct"; the Ain is reiterated because it states that it is a 'root property' of what is to follow.

If Ain was intended to be reinterated it would be written that way. If you would like to reinterate it then you should write it that way.

Ain-Ain-Soph. Or Ain-Soph-Ain.

Ain is an initial and default context that hints strongly as to the true nature of existence.

That is a reflection of your own perceived existence which you are projecting on everything else.

With the addition of the "Soph" you are in fact augmenting the 'nature' of the Ain as "limitless potential" of this "nothing".

No.... Soph means limit. Not limitless.

Ein = Negating
Soph = Limit

Ein Soph = Negating Limit

BUT, the limitless potential of the Ain Soph never comes to fruition in the absence of the third element of the construct which, as above, also results in a "dead eternity". This does appear paradoxical and renders the Ain Soph minus the "Aur" as equivalent to the Ain which is why I say you NEED all three, so, can you really be justified in stating the Ain Soph as "limitless potential" without the Aur? I don't think so.

Of course the Ein-Soph contains nearly limitless potential without the Ein-Soph-Ohr. You just typed it and posted it. If the "Aur" is the "fruition", then lacking the "Aur" there is "potential". That's what it means to lack "fruition".

This is why it makes more sense to look at these three as individual properties of pre-existence, or, you could say that the Ain is an initial(bare bones) 'context' of the divine much in the same way our four-dimensional spacetime is a context for us creatures.

"Ain" cannot be any context. It is lacking any and all context. It is always and forever lacking. You're putting groceries into a bottomless sack.

The easiest way to make sense of it is as NULL set or Mu or 無. See below from Duke University:

https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philo ... l_Set.html

Ain = { not up, not down, not left, not right, not big, not small, not thick, not thin, not shoes, not shirt, not pants, not belt, not dog, not cat, not bird, not sheep, not car, not truck, not 0, not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not laughter, not frowning, not giddy, not serious, not monday, not tuesday, not wednesday, not thursday, ....}

Get the picture? It's a black hole. It's always and forever negating with only 2 exceptions. It is not negating the source, and it is not negating itself. If it were absolutley literally infinite negating-existence, then it would negate itself. Because it is not negating itself even though it is in its nature to do so, then there must be something else which is either sustaining its existence, restraining it, or a combination of both.

The Ain Soph itself must contain a pre-emergent or self-begotten aspect of the divine or else you could not say it has limitless potential as that is a divine attribute as opposed to the Ain or 'nothing'.

First, to be clear, I try to be very careful to write "nearly infinite" when referring to either ein or ein-soph. Second, yes, ein-soph contains "self-begotten" just as it contains "tennis-balls" and "snake-skin-boots" but that doesn't mean that it is any of those.

Attributes of the divine:

OK....

0. It's initial context is a spatial and temporal negation.

Not acccording to kabalah... acccording to kabalah, the divine is absolutely literally infinite, complete, and perfect. A completely unique unity without any division. This means it is all times and all places "prior" to creation. Prior is in quotes because creation is ongoing and eternal from its perspective.

1. It has limitless potential.

True, this is a consequence of absolutely literally infinite.

2. It is the cosmic light that emerges from 0.

Not according to kabalah. The light that emerges is an emanation.

You could even omit 0 and just say that the divine is the "cosmic light" of "limitless potential" and that we don't even know what its context is, or that we'll just keep that one to ourselves to make it easier for the mundane to comprehend - of which aspects of the current thread being a case in point.

0 is omitted by defintion. YOU can claim the divine is light which is likely originating from Christian indoctrination, but that does not link up with kabalah.

There's a very simple analogy that is used to defeat this false conception. Sunlight is not the sun. Sunlight is emanating from the sun. Sunlight is always and forever connected to the sun. None the less, sunlight is not the sun.

---

[CCoburn]

@Ziran

I'm thinking that some aspects of your model e.g. "ever flowing vitality" might align with some of what Roger Penrose is saying but I haven't really seen him delve into that aspect of it as of yet - I only take samples of mainstream academic videos here and there and much of what I watch is for entertainment only and not very educational(but it varies).

Both me and Roger disregard these multiverse theories likely for similar as well as different reasons so that would place Michio Kaku et al as our adversaries.

I do agree with the "ever flowing" aspect to an extent, but I also believe there is a 'renewing' aspect, and I believe this to be a requirement within an eternal construct and I believe the divine knows this as well.

[CCoburn]

I used to use the Google translator for Latin but the more you attempted to cram down its throat the more unpredictable the results became; it was no guarantee, but the results were better if I only translated single words at a time.

I grabbed this Hebrew phrase up quick; hopefully it's correct.

If you put the Hebrew of Ain Soph Aur as אין סוף אור through it you get: "There is no end of light".

Now we know that is not entirely correct, but it's close, and maybe even closer than I thought it would be.

If you translate single words at a time you get:

Ain/אין = nothing.
Soph/סוף = end.
Aur/אור = light.

Constructed in place equals "Nothing end light." which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Now if I borrow a definition of "Doesn't have any" for Ain from the Hebrew lexicon of a prior post and combine it with Soph/סוף I get: Doesn't have any end.

Now "Doesn't have any end" is good. I like that; it makes sense, and if it doesn't have any "end" then in my mind it logically follows that it doesn't have any beginning either. You could even revise it to a single term of 'endless'.

But "endless" to me appears incomplete, and as stated that without 'end' is also that without 'beginning' as well.

Now, it seems to me here that we are converging upon a definition of 'eternity': that without beginning or end, therefore:

Ain Soph = eternal.

Now if I combine that with Aur/אור I get: eternal light.

So, in this particular little exercise here in translating אין סוף אור to English I get: eternal light.

And from a semantics perspective "limitless" is not as much of a temporal indicator as "eternal" is, and this also reminds me of a quote I've used in the context of the Ein Soph: for I "the eternal" have never changed.", and also of course 'never began' and will 'never end'.

[CCoburn]

The "funnel" metaphor(or terminology) brings to mind black holes. Vortices(funnels) are akin to whirlwinds and whirlpools and black holes seem similar to these on a macrocosmic scale. Direction and chaos of flow aside the constructs are quite similar.

A primordial singularity is similar to a black hole in regards to spatial compactification and time stoppage due to immense gravitational fields, and this phenomenon is reflected again later on as the theoretical super massive black holes at the center of every large galaxy including our own; right down to the aforementioned vortices of whirlwinds and whirlpools.

I don't normally think of a primordial singularity as a black hole though, but if one is to talk of "funnels" it would need to have an actual cosmological existence, and not just be the product of an idea existing solely in the mind of an individual or any given cosmological model such as Kabbalah.

[Ziran]

I do agree with the "ever flowing" aspect to an extent, but I also believe there is a 'renewing' aspect, and I believe this to be a requirement within an eternal construct and I believe the divine knows this as well.

Yes, and no. I agree and disagree. Yes there is a "renewal", but it is not an ebb-and-flow until it is fully formed in the material finite world.

The infinite includes the finite, else, it would not be infinite. In the same way, the eternal includes the temporal, else it would not be eternal. There is "renewal" which is a partnership of assertions ( from ein-soph ) and negations ( from ein ). This "renewal" is part of the plan/design of the material world. This divine plan is, according to kabalah, designated "kesser-of-assiyah". This plan can be traced all the way back, level-to-level, to the source as it is cascading through the nearly infinite nested chain of the tree-of-life.

Kesser-of-assiyah is included in kesser-of-yetzirah. Kesser-of-assiyah-and-kesser-of-yetizirah are included in kesser-of-b'riyah. Kesser-of-assiyah-and-kesser-of-yetzirah-and-kesser-of-b'riyah are included kesser-of-atzilus. All four are included in the first kesser of the primordial form. The plan of "renewal" is actualized / implemented by the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) which is simultaneously engraving the plan and fulfilling it level-to-level through the nearly infinite nested chain.

The source, ( commonly referred to as "God" ) is emanating the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ), forming it directly from itself ( yohtzer-ohr ), and actualizing the choice-to-create ( the first kesser ) which is included within itself. The ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) is simultaneously engraving and fulfilling this plan which is producing the pair of nearly infinite assertions and nearly infinite negations ( ein-soph/ein ). This is simultaneously creating the "space" for creation to occur within itself ( the infinite includes the finite / the eternal includes the temporal ) and filling that space with any and all potential objects, actions, symbols, and ideas. "Renewal" is included in that nearly infinite library, pool of resouces, which is the partnership: "ein-soph/ein" ( ein-soph-AND-ein, not ein-soph-OF-ein ).

This simultaneous engraving and fulfiilling is reflected throughout the entire creation process. This is similar to an ebb-and-flow, similar to a renewal, but it's happening simultaneously. It is simultaneously ebbing, and it is simultaneously flowing. It is like a pen which is making an impression on the page, while simultaneously filling the impression with ink. Or. A better analogy: it's like the root which is pushing the soil out of the way, creating space for itself to grow, while simultaneously filling that space with itself. This is a better analogy because the positive assertion is both producing the cavity and filling it with itself. Even when a sprout pushes up beyond the surface or produces new shoots, it is pushing the atmosphere out of the way while simultaneously filling the space with itself.

Because it is simultaneous, there is no first or second when it comes to ein and ein-soph. They are both happening at the same time. Naturally, in the mind, it's easier to imagine a trough being dug, then being filled, or, a vessel being formed then it is being filled rather than both happening simultaneously. But the simultaneity is what is happening beyond the material realm. If it is imagined in sequence, a false conclusion is produced that the trough is being plowed first. This corresponds to "ein" being created first, or perhaps being uncreated making it a "god" over "ein-soph", and "yahweh", and any other conceivable divinity, but that isn't what's happening in kabalah.

Going back to "renewal", tracing its creation process according to kabalah in the tree-of-life: the plan for "renewal" which exists in specificity and in detail in the "source" is implemented in reverse. It is, again, like a potter or a sculptor. If they are talented in their craft, they know precisely what the end result will be, then they devise a flawless plan to produce it.

The plan begins with harvesting the stock, then applying defintion to it. In kabalah, the stock, the raw materials, for producing every"thing" is coming from a nearly infinite library of ideas, which is the partnership of ein-soph/ein which is formed within the source as a consequence of the ongoing choice-to-create. The positive assertions ( ein-soph ) are being formed from itself ( yohtzer-ohr ), simultaneously the corresponding negations are being created ex-nihilo ( u'vorei-hoshech ). Yotzer-ohr-u'vorei-hoshech... That's the famous verse from Isaiah. Then the plan for the "creation" is developed in four major groupings or realms. In actuality there are nearly infinite realms, where nearly infinite defiinitions are added to each and everything like tighter and tighter garments wrapping around the general squeezing it into a particular defined functional shape and size. As each layer is added the creation is taking on more and more of its intended form function and scope. This layering of defintion-on-top-of-defintion-on-top-of-defintion is the function of malchus.

Starting back at the beginning, there is an inner-desire of the source to create "renewal". This produces an inner-plan. The inner-plan includes all the details of "renewal's" final form, function, and scope as it exists in the material world, assiyah. It's presentation and existence in the material world is the end-goal.
The inner-plan also includes the plan for the method for producing the "renewal". There are plans-within-plans-within-plans... The plan is to start with a general raw material and shape it by applying defintions to it. There are defintitions-on-top-of-defintions-on-top-of-defintions...

The plans-within-plans-within-plans.. are a nested chain of "kesser". The definitions-on-top-of-defintions-on-top-of-defintions... are a nested chain of "malchus". The nested chain of kesser and the nested chain of malchus are reflections of each other. Plans-within-plans and defintions-on-top-of-defintions are equal and opposite of each other. "With-in" is equal and opposite of "on-top-of". "With-in" is the "ebbing"; "on-top-of" is the "flowing". But. They are happening simultaneously all through the process.

The actual, sequential, ebb-and-flow of "renewal" does not exist until the creation process of "renewal" has completed in the material world of assiyah.

Yes, there is both ebbing-and-flowing, simultaneously happening all through the process, but it's not sequential. It's simultaneous.

The ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) which is formed from the "source" itself picks up the nested chain of plans of "renewal", which is one singular unit as a single plan ( kesser for renewal ) which exists in the nearly infinite library of ideas ( ein-soph/ein ). The singular plan includes emanation, creation, and formation, how to emanate, how to create, and how to form "renewal". The source emanates this plan ( kesser for renewal ) using the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) such that it creates space for itself. Emanation. As the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) is emanating it is simultaneously creating "space" for itself in the infinite, and filling the "space" with itself per the plan ( kesser ). Then the ever-flowing-vitality ( ein-soph-ohr ) probes within the the plan that it actualized within itself, and does all of this again. Emanating, creating, forming, emanating, creating, forming, emanating, creating, forming, until the "renewal" is presented in its final intended form in the material world.

Let's look at it as a nested chain. I'm going to reduce the font-size so that it hopefully will display all on one line. It's easier to see the nesting that way.

( kesser-of-atzilus ( kesser-of-b'riyah ( kesser-of-yetzirah ( kesser-of-assiyah ) kesser-of-yetzirah ) kesser-of-b'riyah ) kesser-of-atzilus )

( malchus-of-assiyah ( malchus-of-yetzirah ( malchus-of-b'riyah ( malchus-of-atzilus ) malchus-of-b'riyah ) malchus-of-yetzirah ) malchus-of-assiyah )

Both of these ^^ are happening simultaneously. The intention is kesser-of-assiyah. Notice that it is the "root" the nested chain of "kesser". This "root" is presented as the outer "wrapper" of the nested chain of "malchus". This is why it seems like there should be a "renewal" beyond the material world. But that "renewal" is part of a chain of intentions which is not actualized, taking form, until it reaches the realm of material, assiyah. It is rooted in the realms beyond. And it is certainly possessed by the "source". But this "renewal" is not happening sequentially, energetically, in the creation process UNTIL the material world. Then, yes, it is vital to the functioning of the material world.

Energetically, renewal is the "serpent". It is renewing itself. The most obvious indicator is the beautiful, magical, skin. But, also, inorder to renew itself, it needs to be antagonistic, striking up and out beyond its territory. The primordial serpent is rising up and striking at "God" and clinging to it, and feeding. It is continuously doing this. It's not "evil" as "evil" is conventionally understood, but, it is antagonistic. It needs to be. There are nearly infinite negations seperating it from the source of its vitality. It needs to cross all of those boundries eventhough it is being "cursed" for lack of a better word. That requires ... hubris. That explains the "serpent", the most cunning of the beasts of the field. In common parlance it's described in unflattering terms, but it's absolutey necessary for multiple reasons for "renewal" and beyond. It is a source for great power, but it comes with a price if it is used/abused outside of its intended purpose.

---

[Ziran]

I used to use the Google translator...

... which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

OK. The first thing is, in this context, any and all concepts are energetic. They are not objects. They are not fixed; they are not static. That's why I brought you the verbal root aleph-yud-nun = negating, the verb.

Second... eternal is not ein-soph. In the heirarchy of names, "eternal" is "after" or "below" ein-soph. Ein-soph includes "eternal", but it is not itself expressing the concept of "eternal". The divine name which corresponds with "eternal" is yud-hei-vav-hei, but, YHVH is much more than that. ein-soph is expressing nearly infinite assertions, negating any and all limits.

The quote you're referring to is malachi 3:16, BTW. That's the name YHVH. But, if I recall, as the Baal Shem Tov is teachhing on that specific verse, YHVH is the "master of change." The Baal Shem Tov, is, probably someone to listen to since his reputation is one who performed a great many miracles.

Third. The direct definition of these words is not important. What they are doing, their functions, are what's important. Kesser literally means crown. Kesser in the tree of life is not literally a crown. Onee of the first lessons that is taught when learning kabalah is NOT to apply these title litterally. They are pnuemonics. They're very good pnuemonics, but, applying them literally means that God literally has a long nose, "arich anpin".

[Ziran]

The "funnel" metaphor(or terminology) brings to mind black holes. Vortices(funnels) are akin to whirlwinds and whirlpools and black holes seem similar to these on a macrocosmic scale. Direction and chaos of flow aside the constructs are quite similar.

A primordial singularity is similar to a black hole in regards to spatial compactification and time stoppage due to immense gravitational fields, and this phenomenon is reflected again later on as the theoretical super massive black holes at the center of every large galaxy including our own; right down to the aforementioned vortices of whirlwinds and whirlpools.

I don't normally think of a primordial singularity as a black hole though, but if one is to talk of "funnels" it would need to have an actual cosmological existence, and not just be the product of an idea existing solely in the mind of an individual or any given cosmological model such as Kabbalah.

The black hole is "ain". It cannot be a funnel, because, nothing escapes from it.

Regarding "needing to have an actual cosmological existence", um, none of what you've brought has an actual cosmological existence. That's what started all of the arguing. You were asserting that your defintion of "ain" as a "root" somehow was supported by the BigBangTheory. Unless your own conception of the tree-of-life and ain /ain-sof / ain-sof-aur is sync'ing up with actual cosmology, then, your comments about actual cosmology are rubbish.

Besides, actual cosmology is material science. Kabalah is NOT material science.

[CCoburn]

Yes, and no. I agree and disagree. Yes there is a "renewal", but it is not an ebb-and-flow until it is fully formed in the material finite world.

The "flow" begins when the universe begins, and the "ebb" begins when it is ending. See how simple and concise things can be when you actually know what you're talking about? It's just one simple line as opposed to your SEVENTEEN PARAGRAPHS which fails horribly at conveying any concise description of anything.

"Fully formed" is just laughable. The eons of time are now in the double digits and everything is continually in a process of 'becoming': star factories within nebulae as a prelude to solar systems within galaxies.

"Material finite world"? Of course the material world is finite. Anything that is material is created and ALL things that are created are finite.

[CCoburn]

The infinite includes the finite, else, it would not be infinite. In the same way, the eternal includes the temporal, else it would not be eternal.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of those terms. Infinity is not an absolute. It is not something that can be attained, but only approached.

Eternity encapsulates EVERYTHING including any virtual infinities. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that transcends or is beyond the scope of eternity, NOT EVEN GOD ITSELF.

YOU ARE BUILDING CONSTRUCTS UPON CONSTRUCTS BUT THE BUILDING BLOCKS THEMSELVES ARE FAULTY. THE BASE TERMS AKA BUILDING BLOCKS YOU USE ARE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED; THEY ARE DUBIOUSLY AMBIGUOUS.

ALL YOU HAVE DONE WITH YOUR DUBIOUS BUILDING BLOCKS IS CONSTRUCT A HOUSE OF CARDS.

Master Zirans' House of Cards (Please close door carefully)

[Cerber]

While disagreements, even passionate ones, are part of life, the type of language we use to disagree MUST adhere to our rules and guidelines:
viewtopic.php?t=38759
This is formal warning.
If you, fine gentlemen, could please tone down with all those personal insults, that would be fabulous.