Love me or else (Part Two) (Where is it now?)

by BBella , Thursday, January 10, 2013, 22:19 (4336 days ago) @ BBella

Bella: If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)? Why would creation itself have to even come from a God or have a creator in the first place? Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. 
> > > 
> > 
> > I *think* I understand where you are coming with this. The Sephirothic Tree of Life in the Qabala details something very similar in it's depiction of the Ain and Ain Soph. In that depiction, what you refer to as 'All That Is' is nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. God, Ain Soph, was the the product of self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it. Again, this is according to the Qabala and specifically to the Zohar Tradition. 
> > 
> > The Zohar explains the term "Ein Sof" as follows:
> > "	Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . .But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1]
> 
> I've heard/read the names Ain/Ein Soph a number of times before in different books I've read through the years but I haven't read the Zohar or the Qabalah but maybe it's time I look further into them. Nonetheless, let me see if I can get this straight: What this is saying is supposedly similar to what I've said - Energy before any being was made was unawakened energy without form or purpose yet full of potential for all that is now. Then this unawakened energy awakened with a first thought and movement, which then eventually became what most think of as God the creator. Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create. Was this YHWH a being he communicates to or through? Is this similar to what this is saying?-Sorry to have quoted the whole last post, Tony, but thought it was needed to refresh where we left off. Altho I've not had a moment to check out the Zohar or Qabalah, I've been digesting your last post, as I frequently do after a response with new to me information/perspective (besides having so little time, it's another reason I often do not respond quickly as I am a slow processor. I like to feel new information instead of thinking on it). -I noticed the last question I asked you wasn't answered - for whatever reason, I was truly seeking your opinion on what you thought it was saying. I wondered if you think it is saying that YHWH was the embodiment of the creator - in the sense that the creator created himself a body with all remembrance of who he himself is so to relate with his soon to be created beings? Or, do you think it is saying that when the creator created YHWH, the heavenly being awakened as a clean vessel (like Adam) and the creator spoke to him and communicated to him his wishes? -Just curious what you think since I can't tell by the info given which one it is saying.