The supernals
-
It has so far seemed counter-intuitive to me to imagine that Chokma and Binah could evolve independently. If one is the negative to the other's positive, how could one possibly exist without the other? It seems logical that Kether must split simultaneously into it's opposites just as one cannot split sodium from sodium chloride without at the exact moment splitting chloride from sodium chloride.
After reading Fortune's explanation in The Mystical Qabalah, I think I am understanding this phenomenon differently. It seems that Chokma brings the motion to the inert potentiality of Kether. With increase in motion, we also increase in "definition," as it were. The more we define something, the more we limit it, and thus springs forth form. Within this paradigm, it seems that the opposites would not be inherent within Kether, but that the very moment that one increases energy in Chokma, it defines and limits itself, manifesting as form in Binah.
While a stark contrast to my default understanding of the nature of polarity, I can see this as equally valid. Does this seem to be what Fortune is describing. How can we otherwise justify creating one force before its opposing force?
-
@HWNH said
"It has so far seemed counter-intuitive to me to imagine that Chokma and Binah could evolve independently. If one is the negative to the other's positive, how could one possibly exist without the other? It seems logical that Kether must split simultaneously into it's opposites just as one cannot split sodium from sodium chloride without at the exact moment splitting chloride from sodium chloride."
That's a common doctrine - that they emerged concurrently. It is concurrently accurate to say they emerged sequentially. - These two concurrent ways of interpreting it are required by the coexistence of Chokmah and Binah <vbg>.
In some senses this is moot, however, since they exist outside the usual measurements of time. Sequentiality vs. simultaneity is a moot distinction when all sequential phenomena are concurrent.
"After reading Fortune's explanation in The Mystical Qabalah, I think I am understanding this phenomenon differently. It seems that Chokma brings the motion to the inert potentiality of Kether. With increase in motion, we also increase in "definition," as it were. The more we define something, the more we limit it, and thus springs forth form. Within this paradigm, it seems that the opposites would not be inherent within Kether, but that the very moment that one increases energy in Chokma, it defines and limits itself, manifesting as form in Binah.
While a stark contrast to my default understanding of the nature of polarity, I can see this as equally valid. Does this seem to be what Fortune is describing. How can we otherwise justify creating one force before its opposing force?"
Very good migration of p.o.v.! (I wrote the above without reading your post to the end, and was quite pleased to get to the end.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
That's a common doctrine - that they emerged concurrently. It is concurrently accurate to say they emerged sequentially. - These two concurrent ways of interpreting it are required by the coexistence of Chokmah and Binah <vbg>.
In some senses this is moot, however, since they exist outside the usual measurements of time. Sequentiality vs. simultaneity is a moot distinction when all sequential phenomena are concurrent."Thanks. That is another aspect I have been trying to keep into perspective is that time need not enter into the equation at all since the tree (as well as our subjective experience of time) is more of a mental construct.