The Tree of Life

[CCoburn]

The problem is, you are including "nothing", but omitting "everything". That's the problem...But, "everything" doesn't come from it. It was there already.

No, "the problem" is that you keep throwing around my usage of "nothing" at face value and choose to ignore(because that's what trolls do) or are ignorant of all else that has been posited about it here.

And it most certainly isn't 'your' "everything". If this "everything" is to be a set that includes 'all things', where physical objects are 'things', then how do you reconcile the inclusion of such things within a dimensionless existence?

[Ziran]

No, "the problem" is that you keep throwing around my usage of "nothing" at face value and choose to ignore or are ignorant of all else that has been posited about it here.

You've been invited to define it however you choose, but everytime you contradict yourself. You've objected to complicated, verbose, explanations. That means you should be able to define this "nothingness", or "AIN" as you have chosen to type it, simply and briefly without contradiction. You tried bringing dictionary defintions, but, those failed because they didn't include your contradiction: "a root is not-a-root"

You've already disclosed you cannnot define it coherently. That's why you consider it "magic".

Therefore, I reassert: The problem is you are including "nothing" but omitting "everything" in error. You cannot distinguish between "something" and "nothiing". Everytime you try to explain it you contradict yourself.

Now you're running away claiming you've already explained it elsewhere. By your own standards you should be able to explain it briefly and simply, else, you don't actually understand it at all. You tried to define it repeatedly and failed.

It's clear to anyone reading this. You don't understand it at all.

And it most certainly isn't 'your' "everything". If this "everything" is to be a set that includes 'all things', where physical objects are 'things', then how do you reconcile the inclusion of such things within a dimensionless existence?

That is part of the big bang theory. You posted it, but seem not to understand what you posted.

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.

I enlarged and emphasized what you posted for clarity.

how do you reconcile the inclusion of such things within a dimensionless existence?

two words: unimaginably dense


The answer to your own question is included in what you posted. Didn't you read it? You didn't understand it, did you?

~virtually pats Spida on the head~

There, there, Spida. It's OK to be confused when your god turns out to be "nothing".

"Unimaginably dense" is this case means literally everything is included in a dimensionless space. Although there's other defintions and usages of "unimaginably dense" which are applicable here as well. It's also "unimaginably dense" to be posting about the BigBang, but not understanding what the words which were posted mean. Starting treads about Kaballah while not knowing Kaballah is also "dense", but not unimaginably.

---

[CCoburn]

...two words: unimaginably dense

"Unimaginably dense" is this case means literally everything is included in a dimensionless space.

No, "unimaginably dense" DOES NOT explain how "physical objects" that have 'VOLUME' can exist within a/'your' "dimensionless existence", therefore, your "everything" hypothesis remains invalid.

Also, your phrase "dimensionless space" is a contradiction in itself.

Would you like to try again, Master Ken?

[CCoburn]

He seems to be chattering a lot, but he isn't really saying anything

[Ziran]

your phrase "dimensionless space" is a contradiction in itself

You're right! Thank you. That was a poor word choice. I should have written dimensionless points or aetheral existence which would have matched what you posted. Although it is pretty silly to object to dimensionless existence if you wrote aetheral existence. But, you're right I should have copied your verbage. No big deal. It's just a small mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.

No, "unimaginably dense" DOES NOT explain how "physical objects" that have 'VOLUME' can exist within a/'your' "dimensionless existence", therefore, your "everything" hypothesis remains invalid.

Yes and no. But mostly yes. You're right again! You're on a roll. You didn't ask me to explain how. You asked me to reconcile it. Either way, your own quote answers your own question.

But you're also wrong because It's not MY anything. It's the BigBangTheory. All I'm saying is BigBangTheory matches what I'm saying, and it's the opposite of yours. I didn't ever claim that the BigBang explains how. The BigBangTheory nevver explains how. YOU brought the BigBangTheory, not me. It's up to you to show that it matches what you've written. And, if answering the question of "how?" is important, than YOU need to be able to answer it before demanding that from anyone else.

explain how "physical objects" that have 'VOLUME' can exist within dimensionless existence.

How?

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.

How? One word answer:

Unimaginably

No scientist knows the answer. It's unimaginable. But that's the BigBangTheory. "How" is omitted. You brought it, you should understand how it works. For me the Ein/Ein-Soph partnership is immediately after the first kesser. That's at least 3 giant leaps back removed from any material world expansion. But since you're stuck in assiyah, and you introduced the BigBangTheory as proof of the logic of your years of contemplation...

it's your burden to deal with these material world constraints.

---

[Ziran]

He seems to be chattering a lot, but he isn't really saying anything

I've answered all your questions clearly, concisely, honestly, and correctly.

You don't know these concepts.
You don't even understand what you've posted.

You asked about Ein. I answered.
You asked about Ein-Soph-Ohr. I answered.

You asked about the BigBangTheory: Your own quote answered it.
You asked about the BigBangTheory again: Your own quote answered it again.

My turn to ask a question:


Here's what were talking.
It's 7 words and 2 operators.
OK for your brain? Not too much?


ALL EMPTY SPACE + ALL PHYSICAL MATTER = SINGULARITY.



Where is "AIN" in the above 7 words?
Which of those words represents "AIN"?

---

[CCoburn]

My turn to ask a question:


Here's what were talking.
It's 7 words and 2 operators.
OK for your brain? Not too much?


ALL EMPTY SPACE + ALL PHYSICAL MATTER = SINGULARITY.

No, "ALL EMPTY SPACE" should not be a part of that equation. A "singularity" is defined by its mass, volume, density, and thermodynamics; its density is actually undefined because it results in division by zero(zero volume), although some might say that it is "infinite" or "unimaginable" because of this.

It would be more like: all energy + all mass at zero volume = singularity (meaning it is the only thing that exists and there is nothing else).

It could even be simplified more resulting in a continuation of the Ain Soph Aur.

[Ziran]

No, "ALL EMPTY SPACE" should not be a part of that equation.

Yes and no. There is no empty-space in the singularity. It's 0. But, it cannot be excluded wiithout excluding "AIN".

If "AIN" doesn't mean "nothingness", you need to define it without contradicition. You still have not done that, probably because you'll need to reverse it's meaning 180 degrees to force it to fit in this context. This is similar to your chosen definition of root. For you, root = not-a-root.

The only way to make this work is to imagine that "AIN" is "everything" instead of "nothing".

The word "AIN" means "NOT" or "FALSE". Flipping it to "EVERYTHING" would be like flipping it to "NOT-NOT" or "TRUE". That is just as silly as calling it "AARDVARK".

It would be more like: all energy + all mass at zero volume = singularity

Mass is energy. Regardless, where is "AIN" in this equation?

At this point, it doesn't even matter if this is The BigBangTheory or not.

If you cannot answer a simple question by including "AIN" in your own defintion, then, it's a F-A-I-L.

It could even be simplified more resulting in a continuation of the Ain Soph Aur.

No skipping ahead, please. You wrote:

"all energy + all mass at zero volume = singularity"

Where is "AIN" in the above?

---

Just a reminder:

Empty Space Isn't Empty, And Quantum Researchers Now Have Direct Evidence - discovery.com
https://www.discovery.com/science/Empty ... t-Evidence

This ^^ is the next problem that will need to be addressed assuming you can dig yourself out of the BigBang debacle without completely redefining the word "AIN".

---

[CCoburn]

Just a reminder:

Empty Space Isn't Empty, And Quantum Researchers Now Have Direct Evidence - discovery.com
https://www.discovery.com/science/Empty ... t-Evidence

This ^^ is the next problem that will need to be addressed assuming you can dig yourself out of the BigBang debacle without completely redefining the word "AIN".

Yes, I already know about "SPACE" not being empty, but since we're not talking about "space" that's pretty irrelevant don't you think? And besides, this has already been addressed in a prior posting.

Also, I do not "NEED" to address anything nor "dig myself out of any debacle" as I can clearly see for myself what is going on here. It does not matter what clueless people think such as but not limited to yourself.

You are extremely rude and arrogant while placing yourself high on a pedestal, and I don't owe you or your type anything. I can see what the truth is here in all of this, and that's what matters most.

I do feel though that the writing prompts are a good exercise, beneficial, and at times enjoyable, but your persona is often absolutely cringeworthy.

And I can actually conceive of a way in which "everything" can be included in this model, although of a different manner, but given your attitude, and that I am obligated in some way to prove anything to you is simply not true regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, and just to reiterate, what matters most is WHAT I THINK.

I could just abandon you to the wayside and continue with other forms of writing in which anything I would say here would be included there anyway; at this point there is very little that I haven't written about and a lot of it is just finding creative ways to write differently pertaining to things/ideas/concepts that are similar.

Much of this has been getting old for a while now, and then some dumbass like you strolls in thinking(or pretending) they know everything, or at least a whole slew more than they actually do.

You figure it out, obviously someone as brilliant as yourself doesn't need me anyway.

[Ziran]

all energy + all mass at zero volume = singularity

Where is "AIN" in your definition above?

---

[CCoburn]

all energy + all mass at zero volume = singularity

Where is "AIN" in your definition above?

Your question almost answers itself. "Above"? Before, preferably.

[Ziran]

Before, preferably.

Are you saying that AIN is before the singularity? There is no "before" the singularity in the BigBangTheory. This is similar to claiming "AIN" is an infinite temporal negation prior to... There is no "prior" to an infinite temporal negation. There is no "before" the singularity in the BigBangTheory.

"The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang. The instant immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of our universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial ... 20universe.

---

[CCoburn]

Are you saying that AIN is before the singularity? There is no "before" the singularity in the BigBangTheory.

The Big Bang theory being a scientific model will only take you so far, but Kabbalah will take you a bit farther.

When the two models are superimposed upon one another it can be seen that the singularity becomes Keter, or one: single, singular, or singularity; a unity - one(Keter/Keser).

And as for the "Planck epoch". Time actually begins with the Ain Soph Aur as the Ain Soph is timeless: for I the eternal have never changed.

[CCoburn]

I ultimately converged upon a model whereas God(as well as time) perpetually cycle through eternity, so, this omnipotent 'thing' would eventually reset and recreate as if nothing had ever been created in the first place, but why?

I learned about(the problem of) infinite regression(from one of the course books by Tom Davis) in Philosophy 101 some decades ago, and it's been imprinted in my brain ever since; with the above the creator(or myself) has apparently solved this problem.

Of course once you remove 'time' from the equation there would exist no duration between creationary events which is actually quite similar to "infinite regression" but not exactly.

The Ain Soph Aur is more akin to three aspects of a single thing than it is three separate things, and the "Ain Soph" itself would be the periods between creations(not even a Planck epoch); the "Ain" cannot really be isolated by itself as it is more of a statement about the parameters of existence: that these parameters function beyond space, and paradoxically enough, beyond time as well where less than briefly would be an understatement.

[Ziran]

The Big Bang theory being a scientific model will only take you so far, but Kabbalah will take you a bit farther.

Then "AIN" is not at the core of the BigBangTheory. It makes no sense at all for you to have made that claim in the first place. Finally you have admitted it. It's good that this has finally been resolved.

When the two models are superimposed upon one another it can be seen that the singularity becomes Keter, or one: single, singular, or singularity; a unity - one(Keter/Keser).

Kind of, but, not really. From the perspective of assiyah, maybe. None the less, "AIN" is still MIA. It's not at the "core" or the root of this either.

And as for the "Planck epoch". Time actually begins with the Ain Soph Aur as the Ain Soph is timeless: for I the eternal have never changed.

1) "AIN" as you call it is still missing. It's not at the core of this either.
2) Ein-soph is "all times" it cannot be "timeless". Ein-Soph is all inclusive with only one exception.
3) Time only has a "beginning" from the perspective in assiyah.
4) Ein-Soph is not "God" in Kabbalah, that is a common misconception. "God" is creating Ein-Soph. Ein-Soph is all-inclusive with one exception. That one exception is the source of Ein-Soph.

I ultimately converged upon a model whereas God(as well as time) perpetually cycle through eternity, so, this omnipotent 'thing' would eventually reset and recreate as if nothing had ever been created in the first place, but why?

It's your idea, if you don't know why, no one else is going to know why.

I learned about(the problem of) infinite regression(from one of the course books by Tom Davis) in Philosophy 101 some decades ago, and it's been imprinted in my brain ever since; with the above the creator(or myself) has apparently solved this problem.

Unless the "infinite regression" is false. Just because it made an impression doesn't make it true. It doesn't seem like you've solved any problem. I'm not sure what is gained by any of what you've written. As long as there is no criticism of others, who cares? You can make up what ever you want. Problems, solutions, words... whatever.

Of course once you remove 'time' from the equation there would exist no duration between creationary events which is actually quite similar to "infinite regression" but not exactly.

From the perspective of absolutely literal infinity all events are simultaneous. From this perspective there is no contradiction of an acausal-cause.

The Ain Soph Aur is more akin to three aspects of a single thing than it is three separate things, and the "Ain Soph" itself would be the periods between creations(not even a Planck epoch); the "Ain" cannot really be isolated by itself as it is more of a statement about the parameters of existence: that these parameters function beyond space, and paradoxically enough, beyond time as well where less than briefly would be an understatement.

Good grief. What a mess.

1) Who said the Ein-Soph-Ohr is 3 aspects or 3 seperate things? I already told you what it was in english. Ever-flowing-vitality. So easy.

2) You wrote: "Ain-Soph would be the periods between..." Between? Don't you know what Ein-Soph means? "Without-limit". You can't put something "without limit" between something.

3) "Ain cannot be isolated" Right! So it cannot be at the core or root of anything.

4) Ein is not about the parameters of existence. It's the opposite of that. It's pure negation. It's three letters in english. N-O-T. This is so simple. Why are you making it complicated? "Parameters of existence" is a positive assertion which is completely out of context for Ein.

5) There is only one which is beyond time, and none of what you have written is "it". Time does not need to be flowing in order for time to exist. Consider a deck of cards. OK? Shuffle them. Shuffle them again. Eventhough the cards are out of order, they still have numbers and suits associated with them. This means that the sequence still exists even if the cards are mixed up and stacked together. They don't need to be spread out in a line and placed in order for the sequence to exist. That is one way of considering events as they exist in Ein-Soph. Time exists. It's not beyond time. It's just that all the events are stacked up and are occuring simultaneously. The sequence exists, but it's not flowing.

---

[CCoburn]

Then "AIN" is not at the core of the BigBangTheory. It makes no sense at all for you to have made that claim in the first place. Finally you have admitted it. It's good that this has finally been resolved.

You just appear to be thoroughly and hopelessly confused by all of this which I suppose would account for your continued and erroneous ramblings.

There is much scientific evidence to support an expanding universe, and if the universe is expanding then it must be expanding from a central location; an origin point. It doesn't matter what you call it, you can call it a singularity or you can call it Keter. Understood?

Let's try to keep this really simple. If this "point" is the only thing in existence, and there is a God then this must either be it or a manifestation of it. THERE IS NO SPACE BEYOND OR OUTSIDE OF THIS POINT BECAUSE GOD HAS NOT YET CREATED SPACE.

You want to know where God came from? God came from nothing and the reason this is said IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SPACE; without space there are NO DIMENSIONS there is NO VOLUME and there is NO LOCATION - so it could also be said that God came from NOWHERE as well.

This Ain Soph Aur DOES have a tendency to confuse people as I suppose it should. It's not for everyone. In a nutshell it's about the nature of the existence of this God prior the creation of the universe, and to confuse matters even more it is within a context that is without beginning or end.

[CCoburn]

Kind of, but, not really. From the perspective of assiyah, maybe.

What a bunch of dubious horseshit. What is that even supposed to mean? You don't even know. The "mess" is yours not mine. Also, "Assiah" being the 'name' of the fourth Kabbalistic world should be capitalized.

You continue to fail on even the most basic shit over and over. It's no wonder the Ain Soph Aur cannot be driven into your scull even after repeated poundings.

[CCoburn]

None the less, "AIN" is still MIA. It's not at the "core" or the root of this either.

Ain all by itself is NOTHING; IT IS NOWHERE, and since the duality of the term "root" seems to confuse the shit out of you, I will refrain from venturing down that road a second time.

Just try taking small bites at a time baby Ziran as you appear to be choking to death on all of this; leave the Kabbalah for the big boys.

[CCoburn]

2) Ein-soph is "all times" it cannot be "timeless".

Well well, what should we do here? Should we listen to baby Ziran and his "everything" bullshit, or should we apply a contemporary cosmology, Occams' razor, and the law of parsimony? Reason dictates the latter.

Didn't you ever learn that not only space, but also TIME was created with the universe? Therefore, the prior condition/state was TIMELESS.

Where exactly is this "everything" you speak of? What is the nature and source of this "everything" within a spatial negation?

Why even ask a baby such questions when you know all you're going to get is goo goo gah gah? Because the "baby" is the only one present, and because it's amusing?

[CCoburn]

Where's the Beef?

Although it most certainly is a BIG FLUFFY BUN

[Ziran]

TIME was created with the universe? Therefore, the prior condition/state was TIMELESS.

There is no "prior" if there is no time, as you wrote, in a TIMELESS state.  You keep making this same error repeatedly.  Many people struggle with this.  I understand it's difficult.  Try to keep in mind, "no time = no prior".  The word "prior" cannot be associated with any concept if there is no time, aka TIMELESS.

Instead, a proper, correct, consistent, coherent description of the state is "TIME-FULL", or, "all-inclusive-simultaneity".

There is much scientific evidence to support an expanding universe, and if the universe is expanding then it must be expanding from a central location; an origin point. It doesn't matter what you call it, you can call it a singularity or you can call it Keter.

None of this has anything to do with "AIN".  You seem to be avoiding using this word in any of your posts or explanations, because, deep down I think you know it's garbage.

" ... it doesn't matter what you call it ... " <--- Remember what I wrote about calling it "aardvark"?  It really is like that.  You don't know or understand so you've picked a word "AIN" and you're forcing it like a square-peg into a round hole.  You might as well call it "aardvark" or "doo-hicky".

" ... an origin point ... "  <--- That's not "AIN".  That's not what "AIN" means.  It's not "keter" either.   That's not what "keter" means either. 

If this "point" is the only thing in existence, and there is a God then this must either be it or a manifestation of it.

"... must ... "  <--- No, not "must".  This is arguing from ignorance. 

" ... manifestation ... "  <--- Kaballah uses the word "atzmus", "emanation", not "manifestation".  This word should be recognizable because the first of the 4 realms model is "atzilus".  You're probably more accustomed to it being called "atzilut" or maybe "atziluth".

You want to know where God came from? God came from nothing and the reason this is said IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SPACE; without space there are NO DIMENSIONS there is NO VOLUME and there is NO LOCATION - so it could also be said that God came from NOWHERE as well.

Garbage-in-garbage-out.  You're starting with a faulty premise.

The assumption here is that "God" is limited to a material 3 dimensional space.  Even if "God" is assumed to be "AIN-SOPH", which is incorrect, "AIN-SOPH" means "without limit".  So it cannot be limited to 3 dimensional space. 

Applying this sort of limitation is typical for those who cannot escape from assiyah.  Their mind is stuck in "mitzrayim" "egypt" literally "restriction".   Because they are hopelessly stuck, they employ the typical fable about sour grapes and convince themself, that if they cannot reach out beyond assiyah then the only thing beyond it is "nothing" or AIN.  Then, "AIN" becomes their "God".

Kabalah teaches that "God" is creating "AIN" simultaneously with "AIN-SOPH" along with "AIN-SOPH-AUR".  But, for those stuck in assiyah they cannot envision anything else except for "AIN".  I drew you a map of this in the other thread, but you probably skipped over it because you are here to post little tidbits of your own thoughts under the banner of "kabalah".

This Ain Soph Aur DOES have a tendency to confuse people as I suppose it should. It's not for everyone. In a nutshell it's about the nature of the existence of this God prior the creation of the universe, and to confuse matters even more it is within a context that is without beginning or end.

You just flip-flopped again.  AIN =/= AIN-SOPH =/= AIN-SOPH-AUR.  This is simple language.  They are three difference concepts.  How you are imagining "God" is irrelevant to this problem of flipping and flopping between different words.

And there's still the same error being repeated with the word "prior".  If there is a "prior" then this state you are describing cannot be "TIMELESS" regardless of your chosen meaning of these words from a foreign lannguage you do not know.

Ein-Soph-Ohr, like I said, is easy to describe.  It's not complicated at all.  Ever-flowing-vitality.  The nature of existence is the entire tree-of-life, yes, that's confusing and complicated.  But the ever-flowing-vitality which is producing all of reality, which includes both existence and non-existence is not confusing at all.

It's no wonder the Ain Soph Aur cannot be driven into your scull even after repeated poundings.

OK.  It's clear.  Your error is you cannot distinguish between all three AIN, AIN-SOPH, and AIN-SOPH-AUR.  That's it!  Previously I was thinking it was just an inability to distinguish between "nothiing" and "something", but it's actually more than that.

"AIN" =/= "AIN-SOPH" =/= "AIN-SOPH-AUR".  Each of these have unique and distinct defintions.

AIN = "NOT" - infinite negations
AIN-SOPH = "WITHOUT LIMIT" - infinite assertions
AIN-SOPH-AUR = "WITHOUT LIMIT LIGHT" - ever-flowing-vitality

The AIN-SOPH-AUR is the vitality for both AIN and AIN-SOPH simultaeneously.  The "first" KETER is the binary choice to create.  ( first is in quotes because all of it is happening simultanesouly).  This choice includes all the positive assertions, all the negative assertions, and the ever-flowing vitality which is producing them.

Included in these positive assertions and negatve assertions are infinite timelines.  Time is being created from the very "first" KETER. 

Keter is nothing more than a choice.  That's all it is.  Crowley idolizes it, but, that's all it is.  When a person's true will is known, all they need to do is choose to do it.  That, according to Crowley is the "whole of the law".  "Just do it" per Nike.  It's just a choice. It's not literally the "whole of the law" though.

However, keter for an absolutely literally infinite being this "choice" contains all of reality. It would not be a point or a singularity. For a human it might be on a moment to moment basis.

Kind of, but, not really.  From the perspective of assiyah, maybe.

What is that even supposed to mean?

You keep referring to Keter as a "dot" or a point or a singularity. It isn't really like that at all. But in a way, it might appear that way if one is limited in their point of view.

You don't even know.

I do know, but, since you complained about explanations which were more than just a few words long, there isn't much reason to explain this to you. It's already a long post. It's been a long day. Let me see if I can find something from another source to help get the ball rolling on this.

~googling~

OK! Great. It's the first hit when searching. Did you know that malchus ( you might know it as malchut ) is a reflection of kesser ( keter )?

Again, I don't want to use too many words. Like I wrote before, I gave you a map, but you probably ignored it. Here's a picture zoomed in. The red arrow is pointing to what might appear as a singularity or a "dot" from the perspective of assiyah.

This is assiyah. The red arrow is pointing to what might be considered a relfection of keter flowing into assiyah from beyond it. Now, here's a picture of what's happening beyond it.

I mentioned this before. Everything is flowing through yesod. It's a funnel. Hopefully that's clear from the diagram. This is why I knew immediately the qabbalistic version is a fail. In order for the system to be consistent, logical, and coherent, there cannot be any linkages from hod and netzach skipping yesod. It needs to be a funnel.

From assiyah, this funnel is more like a cone. Assiyah is below the cone. The spout of the cone is nothing more than a tiny hole at the point. Keter which is relfected from above appears to be a dot, or a singualrity, distant and aloof. Masculine, basically. From beyond assiyah, it looks totally different.

Besides the relfection of keter appearing as a dot, this reflection called the "kav" is entering from "darkness". This isn't really "darkness", it's the "AIN" which is surronnding and partnered with everyting in assiyah. If you scroll up, can see how this would create an illusion that the the "kav" is coming from "AIN"? This is where all of the confusion is coming from in your writing. It's because your perspective is stuck in assiyah.

From there, in assiyah, the sefirot, the ein-soph, the ein-soph-ohr, all of it is perceived as a singularity, a dot, originating out of the darkness, aka, originating out of "AIN". And these 3 are indistinguishable from each other and also indistinguishable from keter. All of that makes sense from the perspective of assiyah. Because all of that is united in the "kav" as it is flowing into assiyah. It will apppear as a "dot".

I apologize for using so many words. And hopefully the pictures helped to illustrate it. Just try to imagine what it would look like if there was a gigantic funnel in the sky, far, far away. And from this distant funnel, all of the energy supporting the world was flowing. From the surface looking up, all that would be seen is the dot at the bottom of the funnel, like a star in the sky surrounded by darkness.

It makes sense, if there is much more more darkness, and the star is surrounded by it, that the star came from darkness. And it makes sense for most people to look at the star and imagine it as "God" and neglect the darkness surrounding it. It makes sense for "occult" folk to fall in love with this idea that the "darkness" is the real "God" and the common folk, the "normies", the "muggles" are all wrong about everything. Right?

Except that's just the perspective from assiyah. There's a lot going on beyond it, and the "darkness", the "AIN" is not the source, not the root, not a "God" at all.

---

[Ziran]

Where's the Beef?

Spida, why do you think you know kabalah? It seems like you only know a few words misspelled in english, but you don't know what they actually mean or how they operate in the system.

What makes you think you actually know any, ANY, kabalah? Seriously?

---

[CCoburn]

There is no "prior" if there is no time, as you wrote, in a TIMELESS state.

I like how you reply with these long-ass posts, yet I can't even make it past the very first sentence without encountering an "error"; unfortunately for you, 'more text' does not equate to 'more right', quite the contrary, it has been, and simply continues to be, more wrong.

As a result of the above the bulk of your writing is mostly on ignore as I am now responding to and correcting YOUR VERY FIRST SENTENCE.

At a most fundamental level there are ONLY TWO STATES that can be conveyed in any of a number of ways: negative/positive(existence); something/nothing; active/passive; Yin/Yang; 0/1(binary); time/no time; et cetera.

From Kabbalah take negative and positive existence for example. Here we have two fundamental states that are polar opposites. CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS IS REFLECTED EVERYWHERE IN EXISTENCE WHILE YOUR EVERYTHING HORSESHIT IS TO BE FOUND NOWHERE? Correction, it also exists as a fabrication in some minds as well.

The above are two eternally recurring states; if you say that "no time = no prior" then you have REDUCED THEM TO A SINGLE STATE which in your particular bullshit hypothesis(not even a theory) results in your "everything" and "ever flowing vitality" horseshit. We even have two different kinds of 'shit' here: we have "bullshit" and we have "horseshit", so, it's either "ever flowing" horseshit or bullshit - take your pick.

You are however partially correct whey you say " there is no prior" as there exists no temporal duration between universes as once existence returns(or resets) to a temporal and spatial negation it instantaneously 'springs back'.

The above mimics the motion of a pendulum. The pendulum is akin to the universe from any random point in eternity. At the extreme ranges it stops and then immediately either progresses or regresses. The expansion of the universe begins rapidly but then slows as it reaches the opposing "extreme". Back and forth, back and forth, and back and forth. The 'pendulum' never began this motion, therefore, it will never end.

It comes and it goes it ebbs and it flows, like the tides and the waxing and waning of the Moon.

CAN YOU NOT SEE THE NUMEROUS ANALOGIES I'VE BEEN USING THROUGHOUT THESE PAGES? WHERE ARE YOUR ANALOGIES OF THIS EVERYTHING BULLSHIT; THE REFLECTIONS? OH WAIT, I KNOW:

[CCoburn]

Instead, a proper, correct, consistent, coherent description of the state is "TIME-FULL", or, "all-inclusive-simultaneity".

Yes, something(or someone) is definitely "FULL" of something here, but it ain't "TIME", and it would take me an excessive amount of "TIME" to correct all of your errors in that "mess" of yours, so next I'll just have to cherry pick something; lots to choose from, and they definitely ain't "cherries".

[Ziran]

As a result of the above the bulk of your writing is mostly on ignore...

It's your loss. It's there for others to read as well. It's difficult conversing with you, because, on the one hand you require things to be very very brief. But at the same time, if I am brief the complaint is that it is too cryptic.

In this case I typed a lot. That's good, because, later in your reply you're complaing that I haven't brought analogies eventhough I have. Now I can refer back to them demonstrating your rush to judgement and a false conclusion.

From Kabbalah take negative and positive existence for example. Here we have two fundamental states that are polar opposites. CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS IS REFLECTED EVERYWHERE?

Of course. I've written about it here on this forum.

The above are two eternally recurring states

... or they're simultaneous.

if you say that "no time = no prior" then you have REDUCED THEM TO A SINGLE STATE

... a single state of simultaneity. It's not a reduction at all.

You are however partially correct whey you say " there is no prior" as there exists no temporal duration between universes as once existence returns(or resets) to a temporal and spatial negation it instantaneously 'springs back'.

"Instantaneously" is false in a "timeless state"

In a" timeless state", which is what you wrote, there are no "instants". What you're actually describing is a state where time is not flowing. Simultaneity.

The above mimics the motion of a pendulum.

In a "timeless state", there is no "motion". That is only from the perspective of assiyah.

It comes and it goes it ebbs and it flows, like the tides and the waxing and waning of the Moon.

In a "timeless state" there is no "ebb and flow". There is no "waxing and waning".

CAN YOU NOT SEE THE NUMEROUS ANALOGIES I'VE BEEN USING THROUGHOUT THESE PAGES?

They have faults, contradictions, category errors, etc. What's happening right now are category errors. All of these are temporal analogies and word choices, but, all of that is out of context if the the state is "timeless".

WHERE ARE YOUR ANALOGIES

See? It's good that I typed a few long posts so that I can refer back them when there is criticism that I have not brought my fair share. I've brought a few analogies. The most recent ones are the "deck of cards" and the "funnel". Searching this page for the words "deck" and "funnel" should zip you to those locations.

( click or tap on the images to enlarge them )

OF THIS EVERYTHING

It was earlier, over a month ago, in this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=530368&hilit=endless+sea#p530368

THE REFLECTIONS

I mentioned it, but it doesn't require an analogy. It's in the post to which you are replying and simultaneously ignoring. Malchus is a reflection of kesser.

I also posted it in the the other, so-called "kabalah" thread.

download/file.php?id=1072&mode=view

Here's a better more complete picture. It's not perfect, but it does the job.

( click or tap on the picture to enlarge it ):

One of the primary problems with your point of view, is that you are not applying the concept of the reflection properly. In a mirror, the image is flip-flopped, but the mind auto-corrects it. When this is happening, in this context, an illusion is produced where "nothing" is perceived as "something", "AIN" is perceived as a "source", a "root" is perceived as "not-a-root", there is something "prior" to a timeless state, etc... All of that is an illusion produced by reflections in the mind.

---