I think that Yesh m’ayin maybe be the topology of the merkabah. Today, in the Omer (day count): “kindgom within beauty”. It’s a path formed of
[malkut, tipharet, keter, ein].
Scholarly translations seem to avoid using the word “nothing” in an unguarded way, instead following it up with some addendum expression (of one sort or another). often, referencing vitality
Ayin (Hebrew: אַיִן, meaning “nothingness”, related to Ein-“not”) is an important concept in Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy. It is contrasted with the term Yesh (“something/exist/being/is”). According to kabbalistic teachings, before the universe was created there was only Ayin, and the first manifest Sephirah (Divine emanation), Chochmah (Wisdom), “comes into being out of Ayin.”
By topology, we mean that yesh m’ayin is the framework that the merkaba unfolds upon.
“AYIN means No-Thing. AYIN is beyond Existence, separate from any-thing. AYIN is Absolute Nothing. AYIN is not above or below. Neither is AYIN still or in motion. There is nowhere where AYIN is, for AYIN is not. AYIN is soundless, but neither is it silence. Nor is AYIN a void – and yet out of the zero of AYIN’S no-thingness comes the one of EIN SOF”
This reinforces an interesting polarity (? ‘additional topological layer’) made by [yesod, daat] which, might even have another stem / echo into ein-sof, as [yesod, daat, ein-sof]
“In Daʻat, all sefirot exist in their perfected state of infinite sharing. The three sefirot of the left column that would receive and conceal the Divine light, instead share and reveal it. Since all sefirot radiate infinitely self-giving Divine Light, it is no longer possible to distinguish one sefira from another; thus they are one.
Daʻat is not always depicted in representations of the sefirot; and could be abstractly considered an “empty slot” into which the germ of any other sefirot can be placed. Properly, the Divine Light is always shining, but not all humans can see it.”
Yesod, which is the pre-state. The moment before manifestation. A matter of craft and masons.
The hand lays the foundation, but the kingdom comes [of it’s own] henceforth (?) Perhaps we do not manifest; rather we lay the foundation for manifestation. Then the kingdom unfolds from the [malkut, tipharet, keter, ein] topos; or the [malkut, tipharet, keter] topos, driven by ein.
Veiling is the method of creation. Light separated from darkness, veiling itself, and creating more light, which veiled the darkness; in such the plenum formed
Ecstasy’s purity is stillness; an activity sointense that it appears to cease.
§The Veil as Signature
There is more to comment, on what could be the nature of the maker’s mark on creation. In a similar way our own creations are veiled, people see the end product not the material which went into its creation — nor the creator, unless they leave a makers mark
The simple answer seems obviously to be some cryptographic concept ‘veils upon veils upon veils, every node of the tree’ — i.e. that there is not a single simple veiled source to be seen as the ‘mark’
Yet this also speaks gematria - and number-theory models of universal pattern. Golden ratio. Holofractal and the Vector Equilibrium (which was Bucky Fuller’s invention, afaik). Patterns in these hint at such ‘maker’s mark’. The notion maybe goes an extra step toward why these patterns are so attractive to people. They draw us in because they are the signature of a hidden maker — innate curiosity drawing us deeper.
§The Disquieted Holofractal Plenum
I think that Wholeness is seeking to find perfect fractality (highest dimensional self-similarity). All the Divine laws from everyones’ cultures are all trying to represent what that intent of Wholeness so that people can act toward it.
Various wrongdoing creates structures that are not aligned with this space of fractal concordance. To ameliorate - and arguably heal - the concordance of Wholeness, the universe is complexified with new structures that counterbalance the disharmonious structure of complex that has occurred thus far.
These may be fréchet-like structuralisms, spanning all scales and multiplicities of space, time, consciousness, etc. I presume they are apocalyptic, forming eschatons that harmonize the fractality of the Wholeness that the Divine seeks.
Though each eschaton may be a mahayuga, I rather think that the scale of eschatology sits is markered with the topology of a larger prana that seeks a more-total holofractal perfection.
As much as a measure of fractality must be settled for each eschaton, I doubt that it settles the disquieted plenum of the Divine.