Kaballah Wisdom and Modern Cosmology

[JaJa]

Rabbi Moses ben Naḥman Girondi, Bonastruc ça Porta 1194 -1270

His commentary on the creation of the world describes the universe expanding, and matter forming.

“ ...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahmanides

Yitzchak of Akko 1250 - 1340

According to Yitzhak of Acco, the universe would be 42,000 x 365,250 earth-years old. That calculation comes out to 15.3 billion years, very close to current estimates for the Big Bang.

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed ... h_kap.html

Plenty more here;

http://sites.google.com/site/oldshepher ... icalwisdom

Ed. Note: How was it possible for ancient and medieval Kabbalah rabbis to inscribe conclusions of what are apparently the premises of modern cosmology in their holy book (long before Copernicus formulated his heliocentricity hypothesis) and for those premises to hold the exact same conclusions agreed to by modern cosmologists? The astounding coincidence of basically identical cosmology premises being formulated by ancient and medieval Kabbalah rabbis and then later formulated by modern physicists (as the results of modern scientific research) is indeed puzzling.

[JaJa]

Kabbalistic Cosmology and its parallels in the ‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics

In this present piece I would like to pursue the strange parallels between the late 16th century reformation of kabbalistic cosmology that arose through the insights of Isaac Luria, and the recent reformulation of the ‘big-bang' into the so-called ‘inflationary model' of cosmic creation. Although the formulation of these two cosmologies was separated by some 400 years, we can recognise that they addressed the same problem, that of the emanation of the cosmos out of nothing.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

Days or years of creation.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.

... The calculations come out to be as follows:

• The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

• The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

• The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

• The fourth 24 hour day ― one billion years.

• The fifth 24 hour day ― one-half billion years.

• The sixth 24 hour day ― one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

[HelloNiceToMeetYou]

Great Thread, This certainly belongs in the mad ideas forum, since everyone here basically rejects the big bang model, and most likely Kaballah to

[Aristarchus]

Hey, JaJa,

I apologize in advance if you might have wanted to discuss the following on another topic, but I just wanted to insert here some thoughts on the subject from Theosophy and the work of Helena P. Blavatsky - which did/does give credence to the Kabbalah:

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/sci ... at-bng.htm

Cosmology and the Big Bang

Big bang theories clearly contain many highly speculative and rather exotic ideas, many of which are completely untestable. But the fact that a certain scenario is theoretically possible and that intricate mathematics can be devised to support it, does not necessarily mean that it ever happened, even if it is consistent with features of the universe we observe today. G. de Purucker points out that although mathematics is a very valuable instrument of human thought, it cannot of itself manufacture truth, for "the mathematical mill produces only what is put into it"; the results depend on the premises, but the premises may be wrong. He also states:

scientific theory and speculation in certain respects are becoming so highly metaphysical that they not only are beginning to merge at certain points with the teachings of the esoteric philosophy, but in some instances are actually crossing these teachings and going off at a tangent. -- Fountain-Source of Occultism, Theosophical University Press, 1974, p. 80.

De Purucker rejected the theory proposed by the Belgian priest and cosmologist, Georges Lemaitre -- the father of the big bang who argued that the observable universe has expanded to its present size from a "primeval atom," and suggested instead that the redshift may be caused by light undergoing some form of retardation as it passes through the ether of space before reaching earth. He wrote:

Occultism affirms that in all things both great and small, whether a universe, a sun, a human being, or any other entity, there is a constant secular cyclical diastole and systole, similar to that of the human heart. [This cosmic heartbeat] is nothing at all like the expanding universe. The framework or corpus of the universe, whether we mean by this term the galaxy or an aggregate of galaxies, is stable both in relative structure and form for the period of its manvantara [active lifetime] -- precisely as the human heart is, once it has attained its full growth and function (Ibid. pp. 80-1).

There is plenty of evidence for the continual formation of astronomical structures. Stars are still being born today, as in the Orion Nebula in our own galaxy. The standard big bang theory predicts that galaxies themselves all formed within a relatively short period, and should all be between 10 and 15 billion years old. However, surveys by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) show several cases of galaxies that are "young" in terms of the stars found within them. Astronomers have also discovered extremely old galaxies that apparently formed long before the big bang universe could have cooled sufficiently. The time scale for the formation of galaxies is clearly more complicated than at first imagined.

In 1986 it was discovered that in addition to clusters and superclusters of galaxies, there are also supercluster complexes -- huge sheets of galaxies stretching over a billion light-years of space, separated by enormous voids. Since no version of the big bang predicted the existence of such gigantic structures, cosmologists viewed the new finding with alarm. By measuring the speeds at which galaxies move today and the distance they would have traveled to form such structures, it has been estimated that it would have taken at least 100 billion years to build these complexes -- 5 to 12 times the age assigned to the universe by the big bang theory. It is possible that matter moved much faster in the past and later slowed down, but this deceleration would have produced distortions of several percent in the black-body spectrum of the microwave background and no such distortions have been observed (The Big Bang Never Happened, p. 31).

Hindu mythology speaks of the inbreathing and outbreathing of Brahma, the cosmic divinity, when worlds are evolved forth from, and later withdrawn into, the bosom of Brahma. Some people have drawn parallels between this idea and that of an oscillating universe which alternately expands and then contracts. But there is an additional interpretation. In The Secret Doctrine, when discussing the origin of worlds, H.P.Blavatsky quotes the following from the Stanzas of Dzyan: "The mother   swells, expanding from within without like the bud of the lotus" (Stanza III.1). She adds the following explanation:

The expansion "from within without" of the Mother, called elsewhere the "Waters of Space," "Universal Matrix," etc., does not allude to an expansion from a small centre or focus, but, without reference to size or limitation or area, means the development of limitless subjectivity into as limitless objectivity. . . . It implies that this expansion, not being an increase in size -- for infinite extension admits of no enlargement -- was a change of condition. -- I:62-3

In other words, expansion can refer also to the emanation or unfolding of steadily denser planes or spheres from the spiritual summit of a hierarchy, until the lowest and most material world is reached. At the midpoint of the evolutionary cycle, the reverse process begins: the lower worlds gradually dematerialize or etherealize and are infolded or indrawn into the higher worlds; the heavens are "rolled together as a scroll" (Isaiah 34:4).

The evolution and involution of worlds does not mean that space itself pops into existence out of nothingness, expands like elastic, and later contracts and vanishes into nothingness. It is the worlds within space -- planets, stars, etc. -- that materialize and etherealize. Our physical senses allow us to see only physical-plane objects composed of the same type of matter as ourselves. But if the matter of the physical universe makes up only one tiny range in an infinite continuum of possible grades of matter, there must be countless interpenetrating worlds and planes, both grosser and more ethereal than our own, that are beyond our range of perception, each with its corresponding scale of time and space. The infinite totality of worlds and planes not only infill space but are space.

In theosophy, no thing or entity -- whether atom, human, planet, star, galaxy, or universe -- appears randomly out of nowhere. A physical entity is born because an inner entity or soul is returning to imodiment, and each new imbodiment is the karmic result of the preceding imbodiment. There is no absolute beginning or end to evolution, only relative starting places and stopping (or resting) places. During the lifetime of a solar system, planets are said to reimbody many times on many different planes, making arcs of descent into material realms, followed by arcs of ascent into spiritual realms. By analogy, stars reimbody many times during the lifetime of a galaxy. The observable universe contains about l00 billion galaxies. It may be that this collection of galaxies forms a relatively independent whole, which is just one of an infinite number of such "universes," and that during the lifetime of a universe the galaxies composing it go through many reimbodiments. These universes may, in turn, be collected into " superuniverses," and so on, ad infinitum.

This suggests that the formation of galaxies as well as stars takes place more or less continuously during the lifetime of our universe. Around 1920 the scientist Sir James Jeans suggested that in the depths of space there were "singular points," through which energies and substances entered our own world from another "dimension" or realm. In theosophy, the same function is performed by "laya-centers" (literally "dissolving centers"). There is a constant circulation of energy-substances through the various planes, and substances pass through a laya state when moving from one plane to the next.

[Solar]

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/sci ... at-bng.htm

Cosmology and the Big Bang

De Purucker...:

Occultism affirms that in all things both great and small, whether a universe, a sun, a human being, or any other entity, there is a constant secular cyclical diastole and systole, similar to that of the human heart. [This cosmic heartbeat] is nothing at all like the expanding universe. The framework or corpus of the universe, whether we mean by this term the galaxy or an aggregate of galaxies, is stable both in relative structure and form for the period of its manvantara [active lifetime] -- precisely as the human heart is, once it has attained its full growth and function (Ibid. pp. 80-1).

Correct imho; and this natural rhythmic 'pulse' is from whence I think the idea, notion, concept of "Time" originates i.e. from the innate or latent perception and/or observation of this quality. I think its the reason why Mankind (generic) has an affinity towards 'quantizing' because it is something observed in the natural science of nature/universe and is also within the body rhythms as exemplified with the heart.

Hindu mythology speaks of the inbreathing and outbreathing of Brahma, ...

The expansion "from within without" of the Mother, called elsewhere the "Waters of Space," "Universal Matrix," etc., does not allude to an expansion from a small centre or focus, but, without reference to size or limitation or area, means the development of limitless subjectivity into as limitless objectivity. . . . It implies that this expansion, not being an increase in size -- for infinite extension admits of no enlargement -- was a change of condition. -- I:62-3

In other words, expansion can refer also to the emanation or unfolding of steadily denser planes or spheres from the spiritual summit of a hierarchy, until the lowest and most material world is reached. At the midpoint of the evolutionary cycle, the reverse process begins: the lower worlds gradually dematerialize or etherealize and are infolded or indrawn into the higher worlds; the heavens are "rolled together as a scroll" (Isaiah 34:4).

Exactly. This is why, conceptually, a Continuum needs to be the relation from which cosmology is approached. A Continuum within which the energetic "quanta" (regardless of phase-state) are self-differentiations of the Continuum - the energetic phases of which - must necessarily co-exist within the same Continuum from which they are formed. They (either as "quanta" and/or the various 'phase-states' thereof ["condensed matter applies here which Mr. Costas understands]) cannot 'separate' from the Continuum upon which they are dependent as "conditions" thereof.

This is one of the major flaws of "big bang" cosmology imho when it tries to posits a "singularity" existing .... - where? The idea automatically segregates the relationship to a Continuum because the Mind needs to know 'where' and 'in what' did the "singularity" exist. A question for which there is no answer; just an irrational cul-de-sac:

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky. - Universe 101

No. The mCBR is not the left over microwave 'smoke' from an 'expansive explosion.' Not when the Continuum continually undergoes self-differentiations or "a change of condition" - as given. The mCBR stems from a continual process occurring right now in the cyclical nature of the Universal Matrix or the "Waters of Space." Note, it does not say the 'Waters in Space' but the "Waters of Space." There is a significance difference that needs to be pondered.

[JaJa]

Aristarchus you said;

Hey, JaJa,

I apologize in advance if you might have wanted to discuss the following on another topic, but I just wanted to insert here some thoughts on the subject from Theosophy and the work of Helena P. Blavatsky - which did/does give credence to the Kabbalah:

Really, there is no need to apologize.

Big bang theories clearly contain many highly speculative and rather exotic ideas, many of which are completely untestable. But the fact that a certain scenario is theoretically possible and that intricate mathematics can be devised to support it, does not necessarily mean that it ever happened, even if it is consistent with features of the universe we observe today.

A point that I was trying to discuss with Nereid. When you look at the Kabbalah religion/doctrine it is very difficult (imho) to see where cosmological religion/doctrine ISN'T the same - of course, the many similarities that one can draw from both religions could be nothing more than chance. In terms of the Kabbalah, this idealism goes back further than 400 years, so far, the earliest I have been able to trace it back to is Rabbi Moses ben Naḥman Girondi, which isn't far off a 1000 years. It certainly feels like a "chosen" view...

Occultism affirms that in all things both great and small, whether a universe, a sun, a human being, or any other entity, there is a constant secular cyclical diastole and systole, similar to that of the human heart. [This cosmic heartbeat] is nothing at all like the expanding universe.

I agree with this statement. It shows (imho) that the Kaballah/modern cosmological models are based on wishful thinking - it reminds me of watching a child trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. An adult can comprehend that it cannot be done and even understand that a different approach is needed. Saying that however, imagine thinking that you represent a "chosen" view, only for the universe, and all the observations that come with the advancement of knowledge and technological development reveal that your cherished view is actually wrong.

In other words, expansion can refer also to the emanation or unfolding of steadily denser planes or spheres from the spiritual summit of a hierarchy, until the lowest and most material world is reached. At the midpoint of the evolutionary cycle, the reverse process begins: the lower worlds gradually dematerialize or etherealize and are infolded or indrawn into the higher worlds; the heavens are "rolled together as a scroll

One can see from where the late Prof Bohm drew some of his inspiration, it must have been all that hanging out with Jiddu Krishnamurti, which according to one physicist I spoke to not so long back, was a good indicator that Bohm had lost his marbles in later life... ah the irony of ignorance.

In theosophy, no thing or entity -- whether atom, human, planet, star, galaxy, or universe -- appears randomly out of nowhere. A physical entity is born because an inner entity or soul is returning to imodiment, and each new imbodiment is the karmic result of the preceding imbodiment.

On this I don't agree, at least not in any conventional understanding of Karma, i.e. an eye for an eye - this is a complex topic and if addressed correctly should consider intent/feelings both before, during and after an event. There are also a great many unanswered questions about reincarnation and the process of "memory".

The observable universe contains about l00 billion galaxies. It may be that this collection of galaxies forms a relatively independent whole, which is just one of an infinite number of such "universes," and that during the lifetime of a universe the galaxies composing it go through many reimbodiments. These universes may, in turn, be collected into " superuniverses," and so on, ad infinitum.

Fractals and Russian dolls spring to my mind...

Solar you said;

this natural rhythmic 'pulse' is from whence I think the idea, notion, concept of "Time" originates i.e. from the innate or latent perception and/or observation of this quality.

I think this natural rhythmic 'pulse' is from whence all ideas, notions and concepts originate...

JJ

[JaJa]

The doctrine of Sheviret HaKelim, or "Shattering of the Vessels"

According to Lurianic Kabbalah, the sefirot were originally of the nature of pure unmanifest Light. They only aquired a "vessel", or manifest characteristics, in the lowest of the Adam Kadmonic worlds, the World of Speech, or the Bound World, so called because all its ten Lights resided in a single vessel. This was only a prelude to the "World of Chaos" (Olam ha-Tohu) or "World of Points" (Nekudot), the first World to be emanated from Adam Kadmon and thus have actual manifest existence. The word Tohu refers to the state of the original Sefirot, as unformed and unordered points. It comes from Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The "World of Points" was so called because at this time the sefirot did not relate to each other, but were in the form of unorganised (chaotic) atomistic separateness (hence the term World of Points). The Sefirot, apart from the first three, were not organised in three columns as they are in the present world of Atzilut, but in a single row, making it impossible for them to interrelate.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Kabbalah/Atzilut-tohu.htm

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based.

Modern science confirms the validity of Lurianic and Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah mystical texts or confirms that it has been fashioned on mystical Jewish texts it is claimed to validate?

There have been three extraordinary developments over the past four hundred years which, when viewed as parts of an interlocking whole, promise to reshape the destiny not only of ourselves, not only of our planet, not only of our society and our species, but perhaps of the cosmos itself -- or, as the Kabbalists call it, "The Face of God."

The three parts of this larger picture are two men and an ancient explosion. The first is the Jewish mystic and Kabbalist of the sixteenth century, Rabbi Isaac Luria, who set about to discover a plan of spiritual redemption based on the laws of the physical universe and its primordial creation, as based on the "data" contained in Jewish Written and Oral Scripture, such as the Old Testament and Zohar. He called the cosmogony he discovered "Tikkun," about which I shall have much more to say later in this series of lectures.

The second part of the picture is is the great Swiss theologian and religious psychologist, C. G. Jung who was the first scientist to dare to develop a science of the soul based on his own direct encounters with God. His work as we have been discussing it in our Jung Seminar lectures, amplifies the dynamics of Lurianic Tikkun and brings it more appropriately into the twentieth century as what we have been calling, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah.

And finally, the third piece of this picture is an event modern astronomers and physicists call the "Big Bang" -- a cataclysmic explosion in the cosmos which, they say, inaugurated the beginnings of the universe, just as Isaac Luria said the "Shattering of the Vessels" had four centuries earlier.

It is my premise in this series of lectures that the discovery by 20th-century scientists of this "Big Bang" and the astronomical events surrounding it validate Isaac Luria's Kabbalistic theosophy and the Neo-Sabbatian paradigm that has grown out of it. My intention in the lectures to follow is to garner whatever evidence I can for this conclusion from the literature of science, Jewish mysticism and Jungian metaphysics, beginning with the following direct comparison between the components of Sheviret HaKelim and those of the Big Bang.

http://www.kheper.net/essays/Tikkun_and ... heory.html

[JaJa]

Reconciling Genesis and the Big Bang — with the help of Kabbalah

Depending on your spiritual leanings, that first moment in time may have been either a godly act or a gravitational singularity; it's rare you see it described as both.

But according to Howard Smith, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, it's not necessary to choose one explanation over the other. In his new book, "Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmology and Kabbalah," Smith argues that science and religion are more compatible than people tend to think.

The book, published by New World Library, draws parallels between Kabbalah's interpretation of Genesis and the Big Bang theory. The two accounts have some interesting correlations: Each suggests in its own terms that the universe wasn't always around; that it had a beginning, a time when it was an infinitesimally small point; and that at that time there was total unity. They even agree that light from the beginning of time ("cosmic microwave background radiation," in scientific terms) still permeates our universe.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/325 ... -kabbalah/

Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmology and Kabbalah

Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmology and Kabbalah, a New Conversation Between Science and Religion is a book by Howard Smith, an astrophysicist. The book, published in 2006, was written for the layperson. It discusses using simple language basic concepts in modern cosmology and Kabbalah (a form of Jewish mysticism), the creation of the universe from nothing via the big bang, general relativity, dark matter, cosmic acceleration, quantum mechanics, and free will, among other topics. The book attempts to clearly explains these subjects, and uses them to try and illustrate how religion and science together can enrich one's spiritual and intellectual life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_There_Be_Light_(book)

Extract from Let there be light... Epoc of matter

As the universe continued its inexorable growth and cooling matter gradually became more important than radiation in the simple sense that there was just more of it per unit of volume. Today, much later on but still in the epoch of matter, it is the matter in the universe, and not the radiation, that determines what happens for most intents and purposes. When we pick up our story, matter in the universe did not yet exist in the form of neutral atoms. It consisted instead of a plasma of positively charged atomic nuclei, with electrons also present, but not attached to the nuclei. Because they were free to move, these electrons scattered the light that permeatted space, as a fog of water droplets will redirect and diffuse into an opaque haze. The practical effect of this cosmic mist was to block us from peering through its veil to see directly into the happenings of the universe earlier than the epoch of matter

Let there be light

According to Howard Smith

It's fascinating stuff, educational at worst and mind-bending at best, but there's a hitch: You've got to be able to get through it.

Without vomiting or dying of laughter I assume.

JJ

[JaJa]

Hi

I didn't think it would be right to post lots of extracts and links to information without attempting to engage in some kind of dialogue about what is being posted, even if it means talking to myself, which I’m used to anyway.

Thus far, my posts have attempted to highlight the unusual similarities between modern cosmology’s prize theory (the Big Bang) and the creation myth of the Kabbalah. This is something that some members of the Jewish community are quite proud of – namely because Big Bang cosmology is seen to verify ancient Kabbalist wisdom. However, does it verify wisdom or merely demonstrate a follow on of like minded idealism.

The root of this widely accepted Kabbalah myth is generally accredited to Isaac Luria, otherwise known as the "Ari Zaal," or "Divine Rabbi Isaac". Luria was mentioned in an earlier post and his teachings are thought to be based entirely on the Old Testament and the Sefer Zohar, some would even go as far as crediting him with anticipating word for word what modern cosmology would posit some 400 years later, namely that of the creation story - the Big Bang.

Luria’s doctrine the Sheviret Ha Kelim or "Shattering of the Vessels" which was linked to in an earlier post is believed to have profoundly influenced and carried forward all other Kabbalistic theosophy. To put in simple terms, what is often cited as being a very complex doctrine, Sheviret Ha Kelim like its modern day cosmological counterpart, the Big Bang theory, states that the universe (or the unity of God) was shattered at the moment of a cataclysmic event where holy sparks/matter flew off in all directions to become the world of things and beings, planets and stars etc.

To bring this “wisdom” further into the light it’s important to understand, at least in some aspect, the Sefer Zohar, otherwise known as the “book of splendour” as it is regarded as the most authoritative work of the Kabbalah. The Sefer Zohar is a massive collection of books which is believed to present the story of the emanation of a God head in terms of unfolding intelligence and self revelation.

To begin with there is En Sof – the ultimate and inconceivable god head. Keter is the first manifestation of the En Sof in terms of self revelation, and is sometimes referred to as being identical with En Sof, I liken this to the process of self-awareness, after all, a minimum requirement for self-awareness are two points of reference, i.e. the ability to look out and to look back within or recognise one-self, hence the En Sof and the Keter. The Keter is described as the void or nothingness from which all Sefirot manifest (Sefirot are the ten archetypal attributes or characteristics of the original Godhead).

Now Hokmah otherwise known as wisdom, the first conceivable manifestation of the En Sof is represented as a “single dimensionless point”, a primordial point that according to early Kabbalist’s was the origin of being. These days we know it as a singularity, which according to general relativity was the initial state of the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang. Other types of singularities, i.e. black holes, to my knowledge, have not been mentioned in Kabbalah myth – but then I haven’t looked for them.

Finally, Binah is the expansion (like the universe from it's BB singularity) and development of intelligence and wisdom within the womb (the cosmic "space") which contains all things and beings in latent or seed form.

"...What was hidden in the point [Hokhmah] is now unfolded....What was previously undifferentiated in the divine wisdom [Hokhmah] exists in the "Womb" of the Binah, the "supernal mother", as the pure totality of all individuation"..."
[Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p.219]

[KeepitRealMark]

Hi Guys

I find this quite fascinating. You all are some serious thinkers. I am impressed with everything I read at these forums. I can only add one observation on this issue. From what I read here, It was ancient Hebrew based mythologies that they speak of that closely resembles the current Lamestream theories. Well.. Einstein was a Jew. Could it be that he designed his theories around these old ideas. Which is the chicken, and which is the egg. Am I all wrong?

Have a Splendid Godless Day

[Solar]

The premise of a reconciliation or comparison between the two is interesting. Found something that you might find pertinent in relation to the idea:

It is not, then, in the Bible that we have to search for the origin of the Cross and Circle, but beyond the Flood. Therefore, returning to Eliphas Levi and the Zohar, we answer for the Eastern Occultists and say that, applying practice to principle, they agree entirely with Pascal, who says that "God is a circle, the centre of which is everywhere and the circumference nowhere," whereas the Kabalists say the reverse, and maintain it solely out of their desire to veil their doctrine. By the way, the definition of Deity by the Circle is not Pascal's at all, as E. Levi thought. It was borrowed by the French philosopher from either Mercury Trismegistus or Cardinal Cusa's Latin work, De Docta Ignorantia, in which he makes use of it. It is, moreover, disfigured by Pascal, who replaces the words "Cosmic Circle," which stand symbolically in the original inscription, by the word Theos. With the ancients both words were synonymous. – Secret Doctrine: THE SYMBOLISM OF THE MYSTERY-NAMES IAO AND JEHOVAH, WITH THEIR RELATION TO THE CROSS AND CIRCLE.

If true, in order to "veil their doctrine" the reverse might conceptually be: 'God is a circle, the center of which is nowhere and the circumference everywhere.' So that, the central point mass gravitational "singularity" of the "big bang" could not be reconciled with a non existent "center" from which all emerged. It would instead have to contend with a metaphorical "circumference" infinite in spatial extent. Which means its not a "circumference" at all but instead a 'boundary' or "midpoint" by, or through which, the following occurs:

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/sci ... at-bng.htm

Cosmology and the Big Bang

The expansion "from within without" of the Mother, called elsewhere the "Waters of Space," "Universal Matrix," etc., does not allude to an expansion from a small centre or focus, but, without reference to size or limitation or area, means the development of limitless subjectivity into as limitless objectivity. . . . It implies that this expansion, not being an increase in size -- for infinite extension admits of no enlargement -- was a change of condition. -- I:62-3

In other words, expansion can refer also to the emanation or unfolding of steadily denser planes or spheres from the spiritual summit of a hierarchy, until the lowest and most material world is reached. At the midpoint of the evolutionary cycle, the reverse process begins: the lower worlds gradually dematerialize or etherealize and are infolded or indrawn into the higher worlds; the heavens are "rolled together as a scroll" (Isaiah 34:4).

This 'process' seems analogous to "birth" and death"; then onward towards "birth" again. In short the natural observation of "life" then "decay" then "life" again as a "change of condition." If Blavatsky is correct then the reasoning to unite the two might be coming from the "reverse" of what the symbolism actually means in order to "veil their doctrine."

A Continuum (a Unity of One) knows no bounds save those that must necessarily occur 'within' it - the energetic events of which must co-exist as infinite in extent as well - having no "center" and no "circumference" save for analogous "modes" or 'phase-states' of energetic self-differentiation.

[JaJa]

Thank you for the link Solar. You have opened a can of worms with this figuratively speaking. This is part of the secret doctrine that I would like to discuss in another thread entitled Science and Theosophy, hopefully soon.

The topic of the (God) circle and its subsequent relationship with oscillating numbers and sacred geometry is both vast and fascinating and worthy of much more than a brief summation, so if you’ll permit me, I’ll be happy to address this in more depth when I have time to start a new thread - what I will say about it now however is this;

The earliest depiction of the Ouroboros dates back to Egypt (circa 2000BC) and to the Book of the Netherworld found in a Tutankhamun shrine which is speculated (very interestingly) to cover the creation and rebirth of the sun. The Ouroboros is also believed to represent self reference and apperception - the discovery of consciousness perhaps, or to be more precise, the cycles of realization (through endless discoveries) that comes with gaining self awareness.

Anyway, back to the Kabbalah;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/the/sd/sd2-2-09.htm

"The key of the Kabala is thought to be the geometrical relation of the area of the circle inscribed in the square, or, of the cube to the sphere, giving rise to the relation of diameter to circumference of a circle with the numerical value of this relation expressed in integrals. The relation of diameter to circumference, being a supreme one connected with the god-names of Elohim and Jehovah (which terms are expressions numerically of these relations respectively, the first being of circumference, the latter of diameter), embraces all. Two expressions of circumference to diameter in integrals are used in the Bible: (1) The perfect, and (2) the imperfect. One of the relations between these is such that (2) subtracted from (1) will leave a unit of a diameter value in terms, or in the denomination of the circumference value of the perfect circle, or a unit straight line having a perfect circular value, or a factor of circular value"

Let’s not forget that the cross is also fundamental and is probably worthy of another discussion on its own;

Laminin

The laminins are a family of glycoproteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding in almost every tissue of an organism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminin

This 'process' seems analogous to "birth" and death"; then onward towards "birth" again. In short the natural observation of "life" then "decay" then "life" again as a "change of condition."

Yes I agree - a loop that has no apparent beginning or end and one that seems to be set in apparent perpetual motion. The growth of the seed, the expansion of the idea or the evolution of the Holy sparks within the “womb” or “waters of space” is not the "ultimate", but conditions of it, phase states that constitute change – the motion we measure and attribute to time.

In my very humble opinion the "ultimate" is the stillness of space that knows no bounds, which I have likened to the sub-conscious, although the word "sub" does it little justice.

[JaJa]

Hi Guys

From what I read here, It was ancient Hebrew based mythologies that they speak of that closely resembles the current Lamestream theories. Well.. Einstein was a Jew. Could it be that he designed his theories around these old ideas

Hi KIR Mark

Curious isn't it...

JJ

[KeepitRealMark]

Hi Guys

From what I read here, It was ancient Hebrew based mythologies that they speak of that closely resembles the current Lamestream theories. Well.. Einstein was a Jew. Could it be that he designed his theories around these old ideas

Hi KIR Mark

Curious isn't it...

JJ

Yes...
It seems everything associated with Einstein is at least a little Curious.
Makes you wonder… why… why.. why would he exclude electricity when it is the most powerful force we know of here on Earth.
Why Why Why would anyone think that the natural physics here on Earth are any different then the entire universe. Is earth special and unique with this electricity stuff? NO!

God shares something in common with Einstein. God fails to use the electricity he created in his universe in a commonsense manner. Einstein failed the commonsense to even consider electricity in the universe.
Not too bright I’d say.

[JaJa]

Yes... It seems everything associated with Einstein is at least a little Curious.
Makes you wonder… why… why.. why would he exclude electricity when it is the most powerful force we know of here on Earth

Hi KIR Mark

I invite you to expand on this and your other comments about Einstein... how would you link this curiosity with something a little more concrete?

JJ