jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Jul 4, 2006 9:34:32 GMT
Literally, Ein Sof means 'without limit/end'.
Though many Kabalists 'position' it outside of the Tree proper, some have also related it to the first three Sefirah.
'Ein Sof' also has a value of 61 + 146, making 207, the value of 'Aur/Or', meaning Light and East.
As that which is without limit, it stands outside any constriction of emanation, and hence personally tend to side with those who consider Ein Sof prior to, and out of which, manifests the four worlds.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 6, 2006 4:31:41 GMT
Gershom Sholem, in his book "Kabbalah" has a section on the Ein Sof ( àéï ñåó )that always makes me just . . . stare (with his italics):
Scholem goes on like this, for a while. And, as ever, I'm just starting.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 6, 2006 5:56:29 GMT
I recall a local Mason who ran a Memphis Mizraim lodge amongst other orders activities. He used to run Kabbalah courses and told me that few students made it past the sessions on the lower sephira.
He put this down to the energy of the higher sephira being difficult to cope with.
For myself, I dropped out because he philosophised at length without practical application.
But I suppose as a Mason he was taught to philosophise.
So, may I ask: Having read the mystics accounts of their touching Ain Soph, how do we attain our own experience of it?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 6, 2006 6:22:10 GMT
1) Feel your pulse 2) Understand how it got to be there, that it came out of nothing 3) Think about it a while; have many thoughts 4) Now think of the space between your thoughts; ponder that space 5) Imagine that space extending inward and onward forever. That you've have found yourself in that circle in which the center is everywhere and the circumference in no where. 6) Don't forget to breath
|
|
|
Post by gord on Jul 6, 2006 7:54:34 GMT
So, may I ask: Having read the mystics accounts of their touching Ain Soph, how do we attain our own experience of it?
Cheers
Russell[/quote]
Hi Russel,
My guess would be that mystics use the 'path of the arrow' or right up the centre pillar from Malkuth to Kether. Many experience Tiperath and think it's Kether. As for experiencing En Sof...nay...one would have to disintegrate. Indeed most kabbalists claim that the top three seperioth are unreachable by humans, hence they are referred to as the 'Suprenals' (sp?) These are sometimes considered as the Trinity, but to me that's a Christian interpretation and probably not what the original system was trying to explain.
Next time you draw the TOL, make the top three into a triangle and underneath them place a pillar on the left and one on the right. This is as close to masonic symbolism that I can get to kabbalah. The pillars will 'enclose' the first seven spheres, the top three are unknowable as a human (in the normal sense) the top three 'may' be knowable to the Adept, I don't know, and En Sof is unknowable beyond that to anyone or anything Angelic or otherwise.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 7, 2006 2:19:19 GMT
I've heard this, about the veil that falls at this point and you can't get to Kether by way of Binah or Chockmah. And I can see this, I really can. But to say it cannot be done . . . How can this be? For if this is so, then why is the Da'at there?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 7, 2006 2:44:23 GMT
>For if this is so, then why is the Da'at there? Karen I assume you are familiar with how the Tree for each of the 4 worlds overlap. www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/rev6.htmBut this still does not say that we can transcend the Tree to gain Ain Soph. But it might be of interest to compare the Sumerian gods with the jewish Tree to see where they fit - since the jewish teachings are substantially Sumerian in origin. We might find historic god presences overlaying inner teachings - perhaps from those very gods Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by perardua on Jan 13, 2007 2:15:35 GMT
Hello,
The Ain Soph is "Limitless" and thus unable to be comprehended by Limited and Finite Beings. It is described as "Concealed" for this reason. However, it is able to be somewhat comprehended by what it "Reveals" of itself in Creation, Formation, and Actualization. Thus the Revelation of the Endless occurs through Creation, Formation, and Actualization (Briah, Yetzirah, Assiah).
Olen
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jan 13, 2007 2:41:21 GMT
Hi Olen!! Welcome to the Masonic Forum of Light! ;D
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Jan 18, 2007 10:39:21 GMT
Maat wrote:
“Yes my understanding was like most of the gods, the jewish god had a female partner”
I have been thinking a lot about the Kabbalah recently and it occurred to me that the duality, which we so often recognise everywhere, is also appropriate to our God; whatever you call Him. There we go again; I called God HIM.
Now, we can consider the four elements of Alchemy as the four aspects of God. If we consider the Hebrew GOD as ELOHIM (Our God) or as JHVH (some say Jahova) and it is said that He is good, then it follows that the alternative to the good male is the evil male; the Devil.
There is also another alternative to the good male and that is the good female Shekinah.
There is also an alternative to the good female and that is the evil female; Lilith.
Thus the four elements:
- JHVH - Devil - Shankinah - Lilith
Any thoughts??
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Jan 18, 2007 10:44:27 GMT
Sorry. I should have posted that on the Shekinah thread. I'll do that now.
Apologies.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 19, 2007 3:19:38 GMT
>If we consider the Hebrew GOD as ELOHIM (Our God) or as JHVH (some say Jahova) and it is said that He is good, then it follows that the alternative to the good male is the evil male; the Devil.
Phil
St Paul tells us that there are many gods and lords both in heaven and on earth (1Co 8:5.... whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many...)
Thus you may wish to be circumspect about:
- equating the hebrew god with the rest of the elohim
- our god (of love) with the hebrew god (a jealous god of vengeance)
- the goodness of the hebrew god who: Judges 9:22-49 God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem;......And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slew the people that was therein, and beat down the city, and sowed it with salt. "
You might be better to consider that the god of the hebrews was fairly minor : Deuteronomy 32:7-14 8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
So the god of the hebrews received from the Most High only the peoples of the tribe of Jacob. No wonder he objected to his people following other gods
Phil
This is a roundabout way of saying that the kabbalah deals both with the humanoid gods and abstract spiritual principles. But in the usual veiling process, the names are confounded
Cheers
Russell
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2007 11:02:59 GMT
An interesting response Russell. I´m sure that I am going to get myself into deep water when I dare to react to it but react I must. Maybe due to my own ignorance, I could not fully understand what you meant by, `- equating the hebrew god with the rest of the elohim`. You see, when I attended Hebrew school, some 50 odd years ago, I am now a 62 year old Jew, I learnt that the Hebrew God, Adonoi, Elohim, Shadai, YHVH, YY, plus the very many other names, was indeed `The Most High` and no other. The first commandment says, I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments. So, the other gods mentioned here are, what we could interpret as, substitute gods, such as a `graven image`, photo, statue, etc. Or that `in heaven above` such as the sun and the moon or even the birds of the sky. Or, `in the water`, such as the fish. Or, `under the earth` such as the insects or, more likely, the powers of earthquake and vulcanoes. In this text, the term `Jealous` is a literal translation but an incorrect interpretation in English. A better word would have been `Zealous` or `dedicated`. In our interpretation about the commandments and about the God or gods, we are unfortunately confused, possibly intentionally, by the various versions to be found in the very selective passages of the Bible and other commentaries. Add to that, the selective interpretation and manipulation of those documents by the various religious leaders that preach to us saying, `Ignore the rest because we, and we alone, have THE TRUTH. In all the commonly related stories, the most obvious differences can be found in old testament compared to the new. But even within the old and within the new, we can see differences. So what is really correct, if we can ever agree that something was correct, is a matter of interpretation but even more of belief. Equally, the Kabbalah has undergone many further "Developments" and interpretations and exist, among others, as a Jewish Kabbalah and a Christian Qabala (quaballa, kabala, cabala etc). All with their own slant on the philosophy and interpretation of the truth. Even the story of the Ten Commandments, is open to discussion and dispute. I refer you to the following link for example: www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm . Yes, the problem with belief is, while we all drink water, we often drink it from different wells and then its taste is just a little different. Furthermore, our own taste buds put a further slant on that taste. At least we keep drinking. Enjoy the water and decide for yourself what THE TRUE FLAVOUR IS. It´s all disputable, just like alternative medicine: `He that can cure, is right!!`
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2007 11:18:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 19, 2007 12:42:41 GMT
Phil
I think there is a further problem:
For when Shlomo became old, his wives turned his heart away toward other gods; so that he was not wholehearted with ADONAI his God, as David his father had been. 5 For Shlomo followed 'Ashtoret the goddess of the Tzidoni and Milkom the abomination of the 'Amoni. 6 Thus Shlomo did what was evil in ADONAI's view and did not fully follow ADONAI, as David his father had done. 7 Shlomo built a high place for K'mosh the abomination of Mo'av on the hill on front of Yerushalayim, and another for Molekh the abomination of the people of 'Amon. 8 This is what he did for all his foreign wives, who then offered and sacrificed to their gods.
9 So ADONAI grew angry with Shlomo, because his heart had turned away from ADONAI the God of Isra'el, who had appeared to him twice 10 and given him orders concerning this matter that he should not follow other gods.
The difficulty is that Solomon having dealt with the Adonai could apparently see the other gods as at least as worthy of attention
So here the wisdom of Solomon is not sufficient to distinguish between the Adonai and "`graven image`, photo, statue, etc."
I think there is a credibility problem somewhere
Cheers
Russell
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Jan 19, 2007 16:58:39 GMT
Yes Russel, you are right that there exist credibility problems with the texts at our disposal. I had already, in my previous post, used the term " open to discussion and dispute".
We cannot know what is accurate and/or trustworthy and that is why it is so dangerous to draw conclusions from any one text or series of texts. Maybe they are all fabricated nonsense. Who knows?
Your last statement, Russel, is hart warming when you say "I think there is a credibility problem somewhere". My advice, if I may be so bold, is keep thinking. Only we can find our own truths; each for himself.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 19, 2007 17:49:54 GMT
I don't have the in-depth knowledge that you two Brethren and others have as shown on this and the Queen of Sheba discussions but to me this is exactly the sort of thing that Speculative Freemasonry should be about. I have found these two threads fascinating and they have greatly augmented my knowledge. Congratulations to you both and keep it coming!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 19, 2007 19:25:14 GMT
Thank you Bro. Steve
[/center] (inscription from Sinai)
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 19, 2007 22:41:22 GMT
>You see, when I attended Hebrew school, some 50 odd years ago, I am now a 62 year old Jew, I learnt that the Hebrew God, Adonoi, Elohim, Shadai, YHVH, YY, plus the very many other names, was indeed `The Most High` and no other.
Phil
For teachers it is generally easier to maintain that all the god names referred to the same entity. but I don't know that it is that useful for understanding the nature of creation for example when The Most High gives the Lord of Israel only the people of Jacob.
See also the distinction between The Ancient of Days and The Ancient of Ancients
Here is an example of simplification - perhaps as a result of the teachers not having met either of the players:
"In the Kaballah there is mention of the Ancient of Ancients, also interpreted as En Sof or the unmanifested God. The Ancient of Days is the maifestation of the Ancient of Ancients in space and time."
So the interpretation allows us to avoid the possibility that The Ancient of Days is not the same intelligence as the Ancient of Ancients by implicit invocation of the argument that we are all One.
We could use the same argument for the human race - we are all One so that we need not distinguish individual humans
There is also an OT reference to the god of Israel calling the other gods together in council but I can't find it at present.
For the follower of religion, it is probably easiest to be a lumper of lords and gods rather than a splitter.
But for the Mason entering the Temple in the Heavens it is nice to be able to recognise the Officers. And who knows, one of the Officers may even give us a small piece of work
The entry to the Temple in the Heavens requires the use of Jacob's Ladder (Rising on the Planes - a qabalistic exercise) and a certain amount of virtue and adherence to the plumb line and it is achievable
And if the 7 Officers of the Temple in the Heavens bring their lodge down to ours, ours becomes perfect
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 19, 2007 23:34:50 GMT
Bro. Russell wrote:For the follower of religion, it is probably easiest to be a lumper rather than a splitter. Very true. These terms relate to habitual, cognitive styles: The type of understanding we are seeking to develop here requires us to break these habits and learn to recognise when to split (be analytical) and when to lump or level (be holistic). When we choose to explore where an analytical approach may lead, we should we should also be alert to the opinions of those exploring an holistic approach, and visa versa.
|
|