Talk:Ein Sof

Fail to see connection to this topic

A person with just an ip address added the following information on Jan. 21, 2006:

"Mathematician Georg Cantor labeled different sizes of infinity using the Aleph. The smallest size of infinity is aleph-null ($\aleph _{0}$), the second size is aleph-one ($\aleph _{1}$), etc. One theory about why cantor chose to use the aleph is because it is the first letter of Ein-Sof. (See Aleph Numbers)"

I believe the above quote should be removed because I see no relationship to the article. If someone disagrees, please add a transition that will make Georg Cantor relevant to this article. Thanks Wjbentley 19:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from Karen Armstrong's "A History of God"

I think we are talking about the same thing...let me quote some of Armstrong's book and see if that helps clarify what Im trying to say:

"the sefiroth were both the names that God had given to himself and the means whereby En Sof had desecended from his lonely inaccessibility to the mundane world" (p.245)

"Although there is a distinction between En Sof and the world of his names, the two are one in rather the same way as a coal and a flame. The sefiroth represent the worlds of light that manifest the darkness of En Sof, which remains in impenetrable obscurity" (p. 245)

"They also represent the stages of human conscious mind by which the mystic ascends to God by descending into his own mind." (p.245)

"En Sof had manifested himself to the Jewish mystics under ten different aspects or sefiroth ('numerations') of the divine reality which had emanated from the inscrutable depths of unknowable Godhead." (p. 244)

"Kabbalistic exegesis made every single word of the Bible refer to one or other of the ten sefiroth: each verse described an event or phenomenon that had its counterpart in the inner life of God (p.244)"

Wjbentley 21:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Relationship between Ein Sof and Sephiroth

Let me see if I can try to explain, it might need more clarification. (I am not an expert most of what I know is from Karen Armstrong's book, A History of God) I see the relationship as this:

Ein Sof a name for God The 10 Sephiroth are ways in which God has shown himself to humanity.

Much like each of us has a gender, race, religion, etc.

The Sephiroth are a way in which we "see" or understand God.

Does this make sense?

Wjbentley 19:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

if i understand correctly, God and the physical universe interact with each other through the sephiroth. see article on emanationism. well, i'm not yet sure if the above makes sense or not- i'll have to do more research first. Gringo300 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________

I will do more research as well Wjbentley 21:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

unclear

i'm a little unclear on the exact relationship between ein sof and the sephiroth. Gringo300 01:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

En Soph is that which is infinite and unknowable. It is that thing from which the sefirot emmanate. While you could call it god, it is impersonal and better thought of as the source of god. It is totally beyond man's comprehension, with the obvious exception that we can allude to its existence.

Both Man and God are made in the image of the sefirot. God is the macrocosm of which man is the microcosm.

If you consider the nature of god when looking at the sefirotic tree, then each sephirah is represents an aspect of god. e.g. chokhmah is god's wisdom, gevurah is god's power of judgement.

If you consider the nature of man when looking at the sefirotic tree then chokhmah is man's wisdom, gevurah is man's power of judgement.

Morgan Leigh 09:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Many hermetic qabalah works give three stages to the "ain soph", 000 (that is, three zeros) for "Ain", 00-Ain Soph, and 0-Ain Soph Aur, then comes Kether. But since the creation, those three forms of absolute nothingness are part of the all encompassing singularity of kether and are not above or outside of it. --- 000 = lacking any possibility except it's own contradiction of being no-thing and being inable to be even that without defining itself as a static 'being'; giving rise to the next 00 = infinite potentiality, previous condition realized as lacking even refutation and therefore being the infinitity of nonexistence and the template for any possible existence. Then finally 0 = infinite empty archetype, static voidness & limitlessness; The previous condition realized as no thing beyond only itself and unable to be impartial or particular to any other specific thing in it's eternity, the vacuum from which the first thought, or pure essence of all encompassing singularity (1-kether) came from. 4.242.192.40 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So to make it clear: Ain (000, zero-zero-zero) is absolute non-existence, not even potential ... Ain Soph (00, zero-zero) is infinite potential, that came from the triple-zero of only "Ain" because 'Ain' is a contradiction that cannot sustain. ... Ain Soph Aur (0: simply 'zero') is endless empty space, that came from the infinite potential because that is all that remained of infinite potential; it is infinite potential because there is nothing to define it; this is that "nothing to define it", which is now defining it as one something. Kether (1 the ultimate sephiroth) now comes into being as ultimate unity, the singularity that all things are a part of; even these conceptions of zero realize themselves forever in static/stasis of being purity, perfect and without qualification or definition; well technically kether has no qualities either; oneness cannot be preceived without something to perceive it; thus 2 comes in; duality; for there cannot be up without a down or down without a up, hot without a cold; no-single-thing can exist without it's opposite, or something to contrast it to... so in reality Kether is as static and non-manifest as the zeros- one is zero. Kether encompasses the ain, ain soph & the ain soph aur; the three bands of nonexistence. Kether is their realization to themselves; Kether is the godhead supreme; the ultimate principle; the trinity of 'ains' are just process, they preceded Kether but do not come after and when everything returns to oblivion kether will still remain; because kether, as I said, is infact those three portions of nothingness, truly and really expressed.... 4.242.174.112 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Meanings of Power and Din

The article contained links to two disambiguation pages, Power and Din. Each of these pages lists several articles on widely varying meanings for these words. I judged these pages would only be a distraction to readers, because readers who needed to use the links would not know which article to read. If someone knows of Wikipidia articles that apply to the way these words are used in this article, that editor can link directly to the relevant article. Gerry Ashton 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is done!! (Thunder) Morgan Leigh 09:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is "Ein Soph" pronounced? Does the "ein" rhyme with "rain" or "Rhine" or something else? SpectrumDT (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is spelt in hebrew as Aleph Yod Dalet.... so the 'aleph' is translated as not even an "A" but an ' or just a sound qualifier. A breath almost. So it isn't pronounced as hard as "ain" it is very soft, like 'in' or 'hen'. Though another better than I could explain it exactly, look at the Names of God in Judaism that has a lot of audio; and look at those names that are spelt with an "aleph" etc., (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh is a good example) in them, then play them, listen, and then figure it out from there. 4.242.174.112 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)