Zero and the Nine Numbers of Creation

[CCoburn]

it really does look 3d doesnt it this pic also makes the four relams more obvious although the dude having yesod on his junk chakra is a nice touch in the diagram you posted hahaha; here is quote from prisms/veils pretty explanation

i guess if that was all easy to make sense of then life would be a lot less interesting eh

hmm edit to add that maybe my point wasnt clear what i mean is that expanding spherical model can be expanding not on boundaries but on interior too, like sefirot to laddar nodes expand and internal structure becomes more complex, like fractal space filling curves can have infinite length within a finite area. how circle has center everywhere. so maybe dimensions 2d 3d doesn't matter as much because the 2d tree diaggram there already crossing lines and maybe 3d wont fix that because fractal complexity inside expands too

Yeah that's not one of the more popular models I posted although it is one of the most colorful.

When I talk about 2D and 3D renditions I'm mostly referring to relay of information on a 2D medium versus the actual evolution in a 3D(plus time) spatial medium.

It's also said that every sphere contains every other sphere but of a different manner, and this is mostly because the concentric temporal layers of cosmic evolution similar in mechanics to expansion theory(a 3D model), so e.g the third sphere(or phase) of cosmic evolution would have already realized the first(which is actually a 0D point) and the second, but all the others would be potential(or future) development which has not yet come to fruition.

This is a 2D depiction of the 3D model more closely resembling the actuality of expansion theory with keter(the 0D primordial point) situated at the core which would be synonymous with the singularity of cosmology/theoretical physics.

[UltraBudgie]

edit; thank you very interesting and much to think about will follow up later rather than make a loweffort reply

[UltraBudgie]

Circling back to this. I think that one problem in discussing these models is that, since their scope is so wide, they are inherently analogous, and even at that level no analogy is flexible enough to fully encompass the scope of the models. So, I feel left stuck with pure geometry, which beyond making pretty diagrams, is applicably intractable -- it reduces in practice to so many systems of viewing the "Universe": are we talking about the journey of the individual soul? The progress of unifying our relationships with others in the world to our own connection to the Divine? The models via which we conceptualize or are shaped by God? Perhaps our relationship with other intelligences, beyond the sphere of this singular world? When we talk of "moving from sphere to sphere", is that a reformation of the world, or of our mindset and thoughts, our relationships with others, the objects of our attention, our emotional scope, or what? There's so many way to see it. And it seems, the answer is "all of that", and more. Each level of the sphere is one which both affirms the models within, and invalidates any limited conceptions of scope as seen from "within". So the geometric models fail, in being "scientifically useful", as they are unable to helpfully predict; they only guide us and affirm after we have moved beyond them, at which point we view them with new eyes and find them (the good ones, anyway) useful once more. It can be very frustrating! But I suppose that is in some ways an indication that we're on the right track. Thank goodness for the solace of Bhakti, the wanderer's friend.

I feel somewhat lost in a hall of mirrors of mirrors, models of analogies of perceptions, fragments of the Divine attracting and repelling, fulminous and elusive Mercury.

Sorry if I'm going "round in circles". Sigh. It hasn't been an easy month.

[CCoburn]

Circling back to this. I think that one problem in discussing these models is that, since their scope is so wide, they are inherently analogous, and even at that level no analogy is flexible enough to fully encompass the scope of the models.

I wasn't implying to a flying back over here and replying, but more so in leveraging the reply I was trying. I don't expect you to adorn this castle of absurdities with rationalities, but of course you will, because it's what people do.

These models are so ridiculously simple yet unaccommodatingly complex because they deal with existence, and the metaphorical mainstream of Trump and Kamala couldn't be any more at odds with one another – the old David Letterman toss the pencil through the window sound effect.

The two main theories are anything but "analogous", one goes one way, and one goes the other, and I've resolved them down to absurdities and logical tautologies; even sent them to their gender appropriate fitting rooms in anticipation their adorning eternity – the Occams' razor applying quite well to existential garments figuratively as well as literally.

[Swada]

Just like to add some of my thoughts to this older thread...

The ten sefirot is a higher dimensional pictogram of the seven chakra in hinduism. That both represent the nature of our being.  If we desire to use light or kundilini energy to experience material bliss. The sefirot gates remain closed. We experience darkness inside.  If we instead desire to use the energy to experience higher dimensions. The sefirot gates open allowing light to enter our being. The Book of Revelation tells of Johns experience in overturning the seven devils (closed gates) into the seven angels (open gates) to enter the Keter. 

The Keter or Crown of the Tree of Life is the unmanifested state of our being. The very source of pure self awareness itself (I Am that I Am).  The unmanifested eye of our pure awareness is the only means to enter the unmanifested state of the Keter. So we can "experience" the waters of the Keter within. Our manifested ego-conciousness cannot enter the Keter (Ezekiel 44:2-3).  So we cannot "know" the Keter with mind.

[TheWay]

This is the Hermetic depiction of this tree of life:

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/abt76up.png?1]

---

The above and below axiom is fitting for this two-dimensional depiction, but in an actual three-dimensional cosmological setting the within and without would be more appropriate as in actuality this is an expanding spherical model from an initial singular dimensionless point – a primordial point.

This is Satanic doctrine straight from the Talmud.

“I know your works, oppression, and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9 WEBPB)

Behold, I make some of the synagogue of Satan, of those who say they are Jews, and they are not, but lie—behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9 WEBPB)

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son doesn’t have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23 WEBPB)

REPENT OR YOU WILL SURELY PERISH!

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Lol... The Talmud is Satanic...

Have you even read it? Ever? Or do you just say what others say about it?

Oh yeah, those are some real evil rabbis and students reading The Talmud. With their evil Jewish commentary book on The Pentateuch. And their evil Tree of Life probably.

Is it because they said "As above, so below" and you equate those buzzwords with Satanism?

The Talmud is Jewish. Jews dont believe the devil has power independent of god....

That is also the main point of Kaballah. The pillars of severity and mercy were built by the same company etc... in short, GOD IS EVERYTHING. We are reflections of divinity and vice versa. 

But to make it relevant to The New Testament, please consider Matthew 6:10... It's a VERY important verse.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/msg/matthew/6-10.html

Here's 3 different versions.

King James Bible:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

American Standard Version:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.

The Message Bible

Set the world right; Do what's best - as above, so below.

Matthew 6:10 is literally the concept "As Above, So Below" as demonstrated by The Message Bible. 

So instead of telling people that think different than you to repent...

ACTUALLY LEARN YOUR OWN RELIGION OR YOU WILL SURELY TRIP OVER YOURSELF ON THE INTERNET!

[UltraBudgie]

But to make it relevant to The New Testament, please consider Matthew 6:10... It's a VERY important verse.

Matthew 6:10?

ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·

What's that there? "θέλημά"? thelēma? Isn't that that Satanic Crowley thing???

Anyway...

Your interpretation is wrong. That verse is not saying that the form of things has analogous ideal between Earth and Heaven, in the hermetic meaning. It is specifically aspiring that God's Will, which as we know is manifest and eternally eminent in Heaven, may be similarly close to us on Earth. Perhaps read the Greek as "Let your Kingdom come; let your will come to pass, as in heaven so also upon earth".

But the hermetic things seems true too. Whether that is because God's creation has harmony at many levels, or because Satan is uncreative and must crib when concocting the delusions he attempts to cast upon us, well -- that is left as an exercise for the believer to discern.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Luckily, it takes me forever to wind down when I work late, so still up to answer...

You know, I did lead with "to make it relevant to the New Testament" indicating there is a bit of a stretch involved, but is there really?

They are mirrored principles.  Only difference is the hemretic one is deanthropomorphized.

And when you say, "God's Will, which as we know is manifest and eternally eminent in Heaven, may be similarly close to us on Earth," you're freaking splitting hairs.

I think the origin of "as above, so below" is from some Sufi tablet, but by the time you get to the hermetic Crowley fruitcakes or others turning it into sacred platonics, its already christianized itself to the point they are pretty much parallel concepts. 

Even if the biblical is more for the person behaving in the  way of god, and the later interpretation is for the universe unraveling in the way of god.

The are like two versions of superstring theory looking at the manifold differntly.