Ein-Sof Is My Name

[volgadon]

In p. 237 of Nibley's "One Eternal Round" he writes,

Such glory calls up the figure of the Hebrew melek ha-'olam, the King of the Worlds, the King of the Universe, the eternal King, who rules in all time and space. In the Pearl of Great Price his name is "Endless" (Moses 1:3), signifying infinite extent, both in time and space- literally the `en sop of the rabbis.

While "endless", or, rather, "without end", is indeed a literal translation of the Hebrew "ein-sof", Nibley's equation of the two seems to me problematic. It is not the lack of the appelation as a name before the writings of Isaac the Blind which bothers me. His fathers, after all, were reluctant to commit esoteric teachings to writing. What does bother me in this equation is the dissimilarity between the use of "endless" in the PoGP and the Kabbalah. In other words, the substance rather than terminology. In Moses 1:3 God reveals himself to Moses, states that his (God's) name is Endless, and explains why the name applies to him. If he has no beginning, then, logically, he has no end either. It doesn't appear that "endless" here refers to infinite extent in space. The meaning is clearly defined by the terms "days" and "years".

Yes, in Kabbalah Ein-Sof has no beginning and no end, and is unchangeable. This where the similarities end. The typical Ein-Sof of the kabbalists, Nibley's "rabbis", has no beginning nor end, never changes, and is also hidden, concealed, unknowable, inexplicable, unconcerned with the world, unmoved, never comes in contact with man or the world directly (even with Cordovero's panentheism), void of emotions or anthropomorphisms.

I think there is work to be done on the relationship between the two, but this is a far cry from stating that the Endless of the PoGP is literally the Ein-Sof of the Kabbalah.

[Maidservant]

Is ha-olam same or similar to Elohim?

[volgadon]

Is ha-olam same or similar to Elohim?

No, not at all. Ha-olam means the world (or age, period), uses the letter ayin, not aleph, and the heh isn't an integral part of the word.

[etana]

Nibley seems to have been pretty free with some of his corespondences. That said, it is interesting that our mortal knowledge has begun to indicate that time and space are inseperable aspects of the same thing.

[bjw]

In p. 237 of Nibley's "One Eternal Round" he writes,

While "endless", or, rather, "without end", is indeed a literal translation of the Hebrew "ein-sof", Nibley's equation of the two seems to me problematic. It is not the lack of the appelation as a name before the writings of Isaac the Blind which bothers me. His fathers, after all, were reluctant to commit esoteric teachings to writing. What does bother me in this equation is the dissimilarity between the use of "endless" in the PoGP and the Kabbalah. In other words, the substance rather than terminology. In Moses 1:3 God reveals himself to Moses, states that his (God's) name is Endless, and explains why the name applies to him. If he has no beginning, then, logically, he has no end either. It doesn't appear that "endless" here refers to infinite extent in space. The meaning is clearly defined by the terms "days" and "years".

Yes, in Kabbalah Ein-Sof has no beginning and no end, and is unchangeable. This where the similarities end. The typical Ein-Sof of the kabbalists, Nibley's "rabbis", has no beginning nor end, never changes, and is also hidden, concealed, unknowable, inexplicable, unconcerned with the world, unmoved, never comes in contact with man or the world directly (even with Cordovero's panentheism), void of emotions or anthropomorphisms.

I think there is work to be done on the relationship between the two, but this is a far cry from stating that the Endless of the PoGP is literally the Ein-Sof of the Kabbalah.

I think this is the concept expressed as the "Lost Word" in Freemasonry. That is, in Scottish Rite Masonry even when we learn the Lost Word in the 13th and 14th degrees we still do not know its true pronounciation. It is still unknowable and the true nature of God still remains a mystery. If God was in the beginning, yet God the Father has a physical body, as does the Son, and endless worlds have been formed, God has still not shown us the true nature of what "was" before any of it, I think the point that is made here is that God has only shown us what is important in our sphere of knowledge. So, to me what Nibley said here made sense.

[volgadon]

I think this is the concept expressed as the "Lost Word" in Freemasonry. That is, in Scottish Rite Masonry even when we learn the Lost Word in the 13th and 14th degrees we still do not know its true pronounciation. It is still unknowable and the true nature of God still remains a mystery. If God was in the beginning, yet God the Father has a physical body, as does the Son, and endless worlds have been formed, God has still not shown us the true nature of what "was" before any of it, I think the point that is made here is that God has only shown us what is important in our sphere of knowledge. So, to me what Nibley said here made sense.

While that could be, Nibley was equating two concepts which function differently. Tommorow, hopefully, I'll be able to post some of the earliest passages involving Ein-Sof.

[SamIam]

Hello - Sam I am is who I be. I have only signed up today just offer a couple of thoughts on this subject. I hope no one will mind if I toss in my $194.12 cents worth. I consider the biggest challenge to understanding concepts like EIN SOF the chronological thinking paradigm of mortality.

This is actually one of the veils of this existence. We evaluate practically every thing that has anything to do with time in a linear sense. It is not a hole that you can think your way out of and frankly intellectual approaches of analysis rely on a foundation of knowledge as a sole filter of discernment. We think if we can apply the principles of erudition then we can comprehend a subject. The Jews way of thinking does not tolerate knowledge as a single principle of comprehension. They see knowledge as the pathway to understanding and understanding as the pathway to wisdom. Failing in any one of these arenas insures an incomplete grasp of the principles at hand. That is why principles like this do not yield to intellect. However, I can give a perspective that will actually help those who are willing to temper intellectualism with strong spiritual insight an idea of how they will have to shift the paradigm of thinking to grasp something like ein sof. I choose this selection because it is one of the clearest in scripture and easiest to grasp - though paradigm shifts are usually years in the making. But a paradigm shift is imperative to understanding. Here goes....

My $194.12 and 12 cents worth is Actually D & C 19:4-12. It does apply to the concept of ein sof but for the moment please ignore that and look for the principle, because if one can grasp the principle one will find hundreds of other terms that can be expanded upon in the same way and understood whereas now they are generally botched up by most. Just as a teaser consider the concept of firstborn after this explanation.

Here are the key concepts:

4.)And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, GOD, AM ENDLESS.

5.) Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, ...to those who are found on my left hand.

6.) Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.12 Endless punishment is God's punishment.

The point of this is found when you Note how this definition is changed. It goes from a limited mortal perspective linear definition of a .-------------------> a starting point with no end and instead it becomes a point of status. The later definition embraces the first and circumscribes it into statement of being and not of time based length. It becomes an "I am that I am" point - a circular eternal perspective.

Now as a quiz to illustrate how this works in other concepts. Look at the scriptural term "firstborn."

Find 6 pairs of names of brothers from scripture of which we know the oldest and a key younger. Such as Cain and Able, Lamen and Nephi, Japeth and Shem, Esau and Jacob, Ishmael and Isaac, Reuben and Joseph. In each instance the first name is the firstborn chronologically. However, in each instance the second is the FIRSTBORN by Status determined by possession of the characteristics that define what it really is to be firstborn. Just ponder this and over time this whole definition of this word can expand remarkably

Ponder this carefully - dispense with over analysis and try to grasp the spirit of the principle and a new vista will open ... even still ein sof is on the other side of the doorway you are now standing in but if you are standing in any other doorway there is no ein sof.

[SamIam]

whoops ABEL

[volgadon]

We evaluate practically every thing that has anything to do with time in a linear sense. It is not a hole that you can think your way out of and frankly intellectual approaches of analysis rely on a foundation of knowledge as a sole filter of discernment. We think if we can apply the principles of erudition then we can comprehend a subject. The Jews way of thinking does not tolerate knowledge as a single principle of comprehension. They see knowledge as the pathway to understanding and understanding as the pathway to wisdom. Failing in any one of these arenas insures an incomplete grasp of the principles at hand.

There is more than one Jewish way of thinking. Litvaks, for instance, place a very high premium precisely on erudition and intellectual analysis. I grew up in an environment almost entirely Jewish, so I've always had exposure to the various modes of teaching and learning.

[SamIam]

Yes, that was a thought I left out of my post, trying to tone down anything that might be mistaken for attitude. In many circles of Rabbinical thought, conclusions are rendered as if there is a point of intellectual finality that grasps the principle in its fullness. However, the point is that no form of thought outside of an eternal perspective allows one to grasp the principles of an eternal concept especially one as far reaching as the ein sof . One has to play by the rules of expanding the mind in order to grasp the principles. That is the very heart of the journey through the garden of PRDS as illustrated by Rabbi Akiva and the tale of four rabbis. You can only think your way so far into the journey. At some point you have to feel or better yet you have to "be" more than what you can define in words if one wants to grasp the principle in its fullness. While Jewish thought and manner of thinking is significant and I do believe they are more naturally adapted to grasp the mystical over those of a purely intellectual base, still, they fall just as short when they rely solely on processes of mental acuity to find truth. For that reason I have come to accept that the spiritual side of the equation is just as significant as the intellectual side to come to full understandings.

[volgadon]

<div>

<p>Hello - Sam I am is who I be. I have only signed up today just offer a couple of thoughts on this subject. I hope no one will mind if I toss in my $194.12 cents worth.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I welcome your participation.</p>

</div>

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In p. 237 of Nibley's "One Eternal Round" he writes,

While "endless", or, rather, "without end", is indeed a literal translation of the Hebrew "ein-sof", Nibley's equation of the two seems to me problematic. It is not the lack of the appelation as a name before the writings of Isaac the Blind which bothers me. His fathers, after all, were reluctant to commit esoteric teachings to writing. What does bother me in this equation is the dissimilarity between the use of "endless" in the PoGP and the Kabbalah. In other words, the substance rather than terminology. In Moses 1:3 God reveals himself to Moses, states that his (God's) name is Endless, and explains why the name applies to him. If he has no beginning, then, logically, he has no end either. It doesn't appear that "endless" here refers to infinite extent in space. The meaning is clearly defined by the terms "days" and "years".

Yes, in Kabbalah Ein-Sof has no beginning and no end, and is unchangeable. This where the similarities end. The typical Ein-Sof of the kabbalists, Nibley's "rabbis", has no beginning nor end, never changes, and is also hidden, concealed, unknowable, inexplicable, unconcerned with the world, unmoved, never comes in contact with man or the world directly (even with Cordovero's panentheism), void of emotions or anthropomorphisms.

I think there is work to be done on the relationship between the two, but this is a far cry from stating that the Endless of the PoGP is literally the Ein-Sof of the Kabbalah.

Nibley was a renowned scholar, but like all men could be mistaken. He was not a Prophet or Apostle. He did not speak for the Church except in academia. Although many quote him as if he were.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[K-2]

...It doesn't appear that "endless" here refers to infinite extent in space. The meaning is clearly defined by the terms "days" and "years".

...

It seems to me that the idea of Ohr Ein Sof suggests spatial infinity as well -- if the light of God is a direct manifestation of One who is infinite, then it seems to me the light would probably be spatially infinite in like manner. Time and space are so interconnected that I can't imagine how else it could be.

[SamIam]

Thank you for the welcome. So CIFS, would you please confirm your perspective...I believe the Litvaks were Ashkenazic and I thought they avoided Kabbalistic mystical ideology, which certainly would bias towards a intellectual approach. Still the discussion of Ein Sof thus far is Kabbalistic so I'm guessing you have a broader reach. Is that a fair summation or are you biased to the Litvak perspective? Do you also have a Hasidic background that is more receptive of the mystical requirements. For myself I subscribe to a process of analyzing the material from any Jewish source and then bringing it through LDS theology to temper the perspectives to a standard that I have found consistent. I consider LDS theology very generous with a mystical perspective.

What intrigued me from your original post was this comment:

"I think there is work to be done on the relationship between the two, but this is a far cry from stating that the Endless of the PoGP is literally the Ein-Sof of the Kabbala."

My thoughts are that it is not an apples to apples comparison. First off, for me, there is no exclusive PoGP definition of endless. It is only one tangent of endless that has to be combined with other scriptural tangents of endless. The D & C 19 perspective, I consider the most significant because it defines the paradigm shift that is the most difficult for mortal minded folks to make. We live by the imprinting of a time based imperative. It is so conditioned in us that I am of the mind that it cannot be overcome unless the mind is expanded in a spiritual way. If it is overcome in a spiritual way, try explaining it to a person still thinking of eternal from its smallest, most insignificant component of the passage of time and you will make no headway whatsoever. No matter how great the intellect, they will never see the implications of the other components that must be intrinsic in the concept for it to have the time component potential.

Back to the not apples to apples…. Ein-sof is a group of fully developed understandings collectively embraced under the umbrella of Ein-sof. It has concepts of light, creation, oneness, gender unity and a dozen others. It’s time sense must be amended to embrace more than chronology but to also embrace quality of being and the implications of possessing in their fullness understandings of each of the component principles. For instance, and I’ll say something here that some may take umbrage over, but consider the unity/oneness and gender components. I am convinced that if one has not successfully fulfilled all of the give and take requirements of a successful enduring marriage they will never approach understanding those components of ein-sof and because of the intrinsically dependent interactions of all of the components, many tangential reasoning’s will fail as well.

The PoGP def of eternal is only one introduction to a small component of the Ein-sof collection, but I believe it to be a correct contributor to the knowledge point of eternal as it applies to the concept of ein-sof. Still this def of eternal is only a partial tangent of the full concept of eternal and cannot be grasped without the D & C 19 implications and paradigm shift that I mentioned earlier.

[volgadon]

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you for the welcome. So CIFS, would you please confirm your perspective...I believe the Litvaks were Ashkenazic and I thought they avoided Kabbalistic mystical ideology, which certainly would bias towards a intellectual approach. Still the discussion of Ein Sof thus far is Kabbalistic so I'm guessing you have a broader reach. Is that a fair summation or are you biased to the Litvak perspective? Do you also have a Hasidic background that is more receptive of the mystical requirements. For myself I subscribe to a process of analyzing the material from any Jewish source and then bringing it through LDS theology to temper the perspectives to a standard that I have found consistent. I consider LDS theology very generous with a mystical perspective.

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Litvaks are indeed Ashkenazic, from Lithuania-Belorus. This is also the historic center of Habad hasidism. The leading kabbalist in Europe of the day was not Shneur Zalman the founder of Habad, but the Vilna Gaon, a Litvak, perhaps THE Litvak. He authored very important commentaries on Sefer Tezirah and the Zohar, as well as inpiring messianic agitation in the land of Israel, which was based on a passage in the Zohar.</p>

<p>Despite the popular view (such as that expressed in the very enjoyable short stories of I. L. Peretz) the core of the struggle between Hasidim and Mitnagdim was not mysticism vs rationalism. What initially concerned the Gaon were reports he receieved of Hasidic contempt towards serious Torah study and the authority of Torah scholars, combined with certain behaviour which smacked of levity and mockery. That this same group then laid claim to new interpretations of Kabbalah revealed by Elijah the Prophet indicated to him that they were heretics. Litvakim don't oppose Kabbalah <em>per se</em>, but hold to the old notion that Kabbalah study is to be undertaken only by students who have mastered the fundamentals of Torah, particularly halakhah and Gemarah. This was also the position of the late, eminent Sephardic kabbalist, R. Kaduri. The Gaon did believe in a core of revelation as the basis for religion and truth, but everything else is to be subjected to rigorous intellectual analysis. He accepted that Luria did have revelations from Elijah but that most of his teachings derive from his own wisdom. There is no requirement to believe them if they don't hold up to scholastic analysis.</p>

<p> I confess to a partiality for the Vilna Gaon. There is much that resonates with my experience of being LDS.</p>

<p>As for Hasidic background, I grew up near Safed, one of the great Kabbalistic centers, and went to school at Meron, which is where the Hillula de-Rashbi takes place each year. We are also very close friends with a Habad family. My great-grandparents came from a Hasidic area, though they had slight Maskilic tendencies. I'm currently reading a good deal of Hasidic material.</p>

<p>When all is said and done, this thread is about comparing an academic claim regarding comparison between a certain text and a certain tradition.</p>

<div>

<p>What intrigued me from your original post was this comment: </p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I think there is work to be done on the relationship between the two, but this is a far cry from stating that the Endless of the PoGP is literally the Ein-Sof of the Kabbala."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My thoughts are that it is not an apples to apples comparison. First off, for me, there is no exclusive PoGP definition of endless. It is only one tangent of endless that has to be combined with other scriptural tangents of endless.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you look at what the text says, taking it at its own terms, it very clearly defines the sort of infinity intended. Days and years are both expressions of temporal time, not spatial ones. The sort of being described in the Book of Moses jars with the Kabbalistic description of Ein-Sof. </p>

</div>

[bjw]

I'm confused as to how this all relates to Facsimile 2, Figure 1 of the Book of Abraham, since this is an excerpt from that section. Does this somehow prove JS's explanation to figure 1?

[SamIam]

Volgadon.

Thank you for the explanation of your perspective..it would be nice to be as deeply steeped in the esoteric Jewish cultural experience as you. I feel it is a valuable aid in understanding spiritual matters.

"When all is said and done, this thread is about comparing an academic claim regarding comparison between a certain text and a certain tradition....If you look at what the text says, taking it at its own terms, it very clearly defines the sort of infinity intended. Days and years are both expressions of temporal time, not spatial ones. The sort of being described in the Book of Moses jars with the Kabbalistic description of Ein-Sof."

Such glory calls up the figure of the Hebrew melek ha-'olam, the King of the Worlds, the King of the Universe, the eternal King, who rules in all time and space. In the Pearl of Great Price his name is "Endless" (Moses 1:3), signifying infinite extent, both in time and space- literally the `en sop of the rabbis.

I see your point that Nibley fails to clearly develop an accurate perspective that can embrace the breadth and width of ein-sof from the Kabbalistic perspective. We can leave it at that if that is the extent of the search of this exchange.

My point is that he is either not seeing how the aspects of endless as defined in M1:1-3 could properly apply to the Kabbalistic viewpoint or he is simply not taking the time to explain the thought process that would make for a better marriage. I don’t know what he is thinking so I can’t hold him to perceptions…. However, personally I feel that hidden in the M1:1-3 is a concept that not only captures a portion of information that is compatible with ein-sof, I feel that properly comprehended ein-sof fully embraces all that is contained in the M1:1-3 verses.

So if you are saying that what Nibley defines is not adequate as an ein-sof comparison, we are agreed. If you are saying that Moses 1:1-3 is not capable of integrating into the requirements of an ein-sof expectation we can pursue that. That was my original direction. If we were to pursue that we could start from the point of opposites…Is Satan an eternal being that fits the definition of endless as supplied in the Moses verses? This could be the starting point for defining how ein-sof and M1:1-3 can be integrated. If you wish we can build from here. If it is just the academic point then we are agreed and no further development is indicated.

[blarsen]

Hello - Sam I am is who I be. I have only signed up today just offer a couple of thoughts on this subject. I hope no one will mind if I toss in my $194.12 cents worth. I consider the biggest challenge to understanding concepts like EIN SOF the chronological thinking paradigm of mortality.

This is actually one of the veils of this existence. We evaluate practically every thing that has anything to do with time in a linear sense. It is not a hole that you can think your way out of and frankly intellectual approaches of analysis rely on a foundation of knowledge as a sole filter of discernment. We think if we can apply the principles of erudition then we can comprehend a subject. The Jews way of thinking does not tolerate knowledge as a single principle of comprehension. They see knowledge as the pathway to understanding and understanding as the pathway to wisdom. Failing in any one of these arenas insures an incomplete grasp of the principles at hand. That is why principles like this do not yield to intellect. However, I can give a perspective that will actually help those who are willing to temper intellectualism with strong spiritual insight an idea of how they will have to shift the paradigm of thinking to grasp something like ein sof. I choose this selection because it is one of the clearest in scripture and easiest to grasp - though paradigm shifts are usually years in the making. But a paradigm shift is imperative to understanding. Here goes....

My $194.12 and 12 cents worth is Actually D & C 19:4-12. It does apply to the concept of ein sof but for the moment please ignore that and look for the principle, because if one can grasp the principle one will find hundreds of other terms that can be expanded upon in the same way and understood whereas now they are generally botched up by most. Just as a teaser consider the concept of firstborn after this explanation.

Here are the key concepts:

4.)And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, GOD, AM ENDLESS.

5.) Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, ...to those who are found on my left hand.

6.) Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.12 Endless punishment is God's punishment.

The point of this is found when you Note how this definition is changed. It goes from a limited mortal perspective linear definition of a .-------------------> a starting point with no end and instead it becomes a point of status. The later definition embraces the first and circumscribes it into statement of being and not of time based length. It becomes an "I am that I am" point - a circular eternal perspective.

Now as a quiz to illustrate how this works in other concepts. Look at the scriptural term "firstborn."

Find 6 pairs of names of brothers from scripture of which we know the oldest and a key younger. Such as Cain and Able, Lamen and Nephi, Japeth and Shem, Esau and Jacob, Ishmael and Isaac, Reuben and Joseph. In each instance the first name is the firstborn chronologically. However, in each instance the second is the FIRSTBORN by Status determined by possession of the characteristics that define what it really is to be firstborn. Just ponder this and over time this whole definition of this word can expand remarkably

Ponder this carefully - dispense with over analysis and try to grasp the spirit of the principle and a new vista will open ... even still ein sof is on the other side of the doorway you are now standing in but if you are standing in any other doorway there is no ein sof.

SamIam, that's an interesting concept to characterize our sense of linear time passage as a veil. And it would seem to follow that if our intellects are conditioned by this limiting sense of time,you could almost say that our intelligence is handicapped similarly, and might even be considered a veil, as well. Almost as if we can be prevented from apprehending a deeper sense of spiritual reality by our intellects, provided we rely on intellect alone. Trapped by our intelligence, as it were.

Any thoughts on this?

Not sure how this relates to ein sof, though, which I don't know much about. Maybe you or Volgadon could come up with a reasonable definition of the term?