Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: Ein Sof

Sort By:

Limit search:

Differentia specifica kabalistycznej kategorii Ein Sof

100%

Brylla D.

Roczniki Teologii Fundamentalnej i Religiologii

2012

vol. 4

179-203

The present article deals with the fundamental concept in Kabbalah, i.e. the classical Jewish mysticism (Jewish esoterism) from the 11th century onwards, namely the Ein Sof category. Ein Sof - the term that indicates the status of Deus absconditus, Deus otiosus, the totally transcendent God - exemplifies the apophatic, ultra-negative way of thinking and talking about God. Ein Sof, literally “without end”, “endlessness”, refers to God in “his” unknowable, unthinkable, inaccessible, and non-revealing peculiarity. And yet, Jewish mystics did try not to leave this concept completely without any specifications. As a matter of fact, kabba- lists, to talk about the manifested Ein Sof, use the conception of sephiroth that in developed kabbalistic exegesis means divine attributes, potencies, and emanations, through which - cause they are the immanent part of Ein Sof’s nature - God can be comprehended and even described. Jewish mystics treated the sephiroth as the divine “instruments”, “vessels” (kelim), and the question of great significance was how far the kelim were consubstantial, isomorfic with Ein Sof. The majority of kabbalists came to a conclusion that the sephirothic kelim are in fact identical with Ein Sof in their essence, with the assertion that in sephiroth Ein Sof, i.e. Deus absonditus, becomes Deus revelatus. Hence, sephiroth are simultaneously the substance of Ein Sof and the divine “instruments”, and it is only owing to them that God Ein Sof can be anyhow held forth on.

Teozofia kabalistyczna w świetle spinozjańskiego monizmu panteistycznego

81%

Brylla D.

IDEA. Studia nad strukturą i rozwojem pojęć filozoficznych

2013

vol. 25

25-46

This article presents the essential thesis from the Kabbalah theosophy i.e. from the theosophic philosophy of the mystical Judaism, which is the monisitc view of pantheism, viz. the monistic view of the godhead, in the context of determining by it the parallel for the pantheistic, monistic philosophy of Baruch Spinoza. The elements of the philosophical systems in question, on the basis of which their analogies are shown, are the categories of substance, attributes and modes (spinozism), and Ein Sof and sephirot (Kabbalah). The deity of Spinoza, i.e. the nature (for deus sive natura), is the substance (with the quality of singularity, unity, and oneness), the inﬁnite number of attributes andthe manifested modiﬁcations (of the substance), and it is suggested in the present optics that the fundamental kabbalistc ideas as God Ein Sof and divine sephirot constitute the equivalents for them. Such correspondences are presumed due to the fact that Ein Sof is “characterized” (as far as it can be described, because Ein Sof is a product of the negative, apophatic theology/philosophy) by the descriptions speciﬁc for the Spinozian substance and its transcendental attributes, whereas the sephirot are the hypostases for the qualities that are ascribed to the comprehensible potencies from Spinoza’s pantheism: namely the two manifested attributes – res extensa and res cogitans – and the modi. What is more, the kabbalistic godhead is synonymous with the nature – as it is done in Spinoza’s system. Since the substance and the attributes with modiﬁcations, resp. Ein Sof and its sephirot, are ontologically one (they are characterized by the ontic identity), and, moreover, these categories – as a whole – set the entirety of the natural (= divine) entity, it is a well-grounded tendency to deﬁne the two analysed systems as the pantheistic monism, or monistic pantheism, which terms the present article uses.

Refine search results

1 IDEA. Studia nad strukturą i rozwojem pojęć filozoficznych

1 Roczniki Teologii Fundamentalnej i Religiologii

2 Brylla D.

1 2021

1 2013

Search results

Differentia specifica kabalistycznej kategorii Ein Sof

Teozofia kabalistyczna w świetle spinozjańskiego monizmu panteistycznego