Title says it all.
Ain Soph Aur is the first veil above the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, translated it roughly means Limitless Light.
From my own experience, this is Source from which all emerged/is.
"Source from which all emerged/is sounds a lot like descriptions of the Tao.
So comparitively speaking, is the Tao/Source the same as the Ain Soph Aur?
I’m no expert in Kabbalistic philosophy, but based on the wikipedia blurb about it it sure looks like it.
I’m not a fan of labeling something related to the Tao as “light” as this is a very narrow concept for something much bigger than only EM waves, never mind visible spectrum EM, but I think this alludes to what I would call generically “energy” from a time when the ancient teachings were being steadily dumbed down into the religions of today.
If you know you know
The OTO people I talked to explained the 3 as basically infinite void, infinite singularity, and “let there be light.”
I’m apt to agree that it’s the weird naturally emergent oscillation that comes from the two contrasting extremes. Tesla was obsessed with this stuff from a different direction
“The true Tao cannot be told” but there’s tons of signposts that point to it. The small bit about Atman and Brahmin I read up on seemed strangely close as well
As for it being “light” I suspect that’s probably more allegorical like the elements are. There are several books that allude to the “light of the Tao.” Mantak Chia’s work comes to mind
I don’t know if Or Ein Sof corresponds to the Tao. I always thought the Tao was the gestalt of reality in motion, more in line with the underlying energy of Chokmah.
Chokmah in kabbalah corresponds to 'νοῦς (Nous, divine mind in Greek Philosophy).
Anaxagoras taught the concept of Nous as divine intelligence. Xenophon taught the concepts of universal and personal Nous, after the theories Anaxagoras popularized.
In Philebus, Plato quotes Socrates as saying ‘νοῦς (divine mind/intelligence) always rules the universe.’ In Cratylus, Plato equated Nous with Athena, giving the breakdown of Ἀθεονόα (Athenoa) as being θεος + νοῦς (Theos + Nous, or God’s Mind).
In his work, Aristotle compared Nous to σοφία (Sophia, wisdom), ἐπιστήμη (Episteme, science), τέχνη (Techne, skill), and φρόνησῐς (Phronesis, practicality) and considered Nous to be the Unmoved Mover.
This concept has developed into Chokmah and the Prime Mover after Sophia. חוכמה = σοφία = Wisdom. In this way, Chokmah has מזלות’ (Mazloth, the zodiac) and the fixed stars as real-world counterparts representing universal archetypes at the level of the human mind.
Or Ein Sof is a higher concept of its own. From what i’ve been told, it represents dark energy, dark matter, and universal light.
But who really knows, it’s philosophy, it can mean anything really. The question is pretty philosophical, and philosophy can be roundabout
Hahahah, you’ve become quite the digital necromancer… resurrecting long dead topics…
This is an interesting question.
I always forget and confuse Ain, Ain Sof and Ain Sof Aur. I’ve gone on numerous rabbit holes and then forget what I learned only months later ^^
I only vaguely remember either a cabbalistic rabbi or a fellow rosicrucian (back when I also was one) explaining one of them, probably Ain, is the source or the original. Also known as The Absolute or The Monad by the Hermetics and the two others are the separation of it in order to be able to exist in this (macro)cosmic realm.
I can say that all these concepts, the Tao, Nous, Ain etc. are viewed by many mystery schools to be the product of the spiritually enlightend and seekers that learned and understood at least some of the nature of the cosmos and divinity. The way they are interpreted and explained are merely filtered through the individuals themselves and their capacity of understanding and processing these insights, as well as they are symbolic explanations suited for certain cultures in certain timeframes. None of these probably hold more truth than another. They are all rooted in the same source of insight.
Although it’s interesting and motivating to research, think about and discuss the nature and the difference of these concepts (I, at least, spend most of my time contemplating the nature of concepts like these). It is valuable to consider that all these concepts are just small bits and parts meant to explain some elements of an overarching universal/ cosmic truth.
You said it all there. Laozi wrote it in Tao Te Ching:
'The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
Part of the problem with metaphysical philosophy is that words fail, so there’s no point talking too much about it and even less in arguing over semantics. I figure it’s better to learn just enough structure to do something with it and leave the rest to time.
Many things in the universe are beyond human comprehension and have no useful words to describe them, so you’re right on the money there