- This topic has 1,866 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 1 hour, 25 minutes ago by
.
- Replies
Hi Gianni, I have been wondering how we perceive the material we are reading. It seems like the revelation of the importance is not so much in the mind, but even that happens between us, in the ten. Or at least, when reading alone in the heart. Can it be like that?
Now, when a Kabbalist or a advanced student of Kabbalah is reading texts like in the Zohar, is it that the „sixth sense“, like that „Kabbalistic perception“ he is reading the words with, that gives meaning to them? To me reading this book is amazing, but of course, being just a beginner, it is like reading GPS coordinates, but not knowing what a GPS is. Itś a bit like pretending to read- I dońt mind, really, but I am wondering if that is how it works? So, all the descriptions about the upper worlds and its mechanisms need to be perceived with these other senses to make real sense , to navigate us through the unknown? And then, is it easier to read among the ten, because through that unity, that center of connection, these senses are become clearer. Or does this not matter? Does any of this make sense or is it a completely different mechanism that we need to develop?
Surely it only makes sense or even draws the Reforming Light in the ten. If I was going to read it ‘alone’ I’d need to first have a connection with my friends, as in a hug, a common prayer, a common intention – only then I can study for the Reforming Light, because it works on a broken connection only, to connect the shattered pieces.
Is preparing for a virtual lesson vs a lesson in person the same ? or is there extra or different preparation to meeting and seeing the ten and the friends in person ? for example we have the NA congress coming . If we are going in person do we prepare the same way?
In person you have a much greater preparation, because across all the physical preparations, internally it prepares you. On top of that, you need to prepare your intention consciously: “Why am I coming?” In a virtual connection, you don’t get that automatic preparation, so to do it seriously requires a lot more conscious inner preparation.
I’ve heard the recurring guidance from the teachers that for worldly ailments, we apply worldly remedies—that if one has a broken leg, or a psychological disorder like OCD or depression, they should seek professional help outside the wisdom. I completely understand and respect this boundary, and it seems like a healthy distinction to maintain.
That said, I want to ask about something more complex and internal.
Take for instance someone who is paralyzed. Yes, it’s a physical condition, and yes, it’s something a doctor treats—but that person doesn’t simply “have” paralysis; they exist within it. It’s not just a diagnosis, it’s an inseparable part of how they move through the world. It becomes woven into the fabric of their experience.
In a similar way, many of us carry certain mental or emotional tendencies—not always severe enough to warrant a diagnosis, but persistent and shaping. Things like obsessive thought loops, depressive coloring of perception, or self-critical inner voices. We don’t just “have” these thoughts—we exist within them. They inform our inner world, moment by moment.
So my question is:
How should we relate to these more subtle but ever-present mental states? Should we be actively scrutinizing them as material for our spiritual work, or should we view them as noise—something external to the wisdom and best left untouched within this context?
And more broadly: Why does this question always seem to receive the same general answer? Is it because, from the perspective of spiritual attainment, these inner experiences truly hold no individual significance? Or is it that we don’t yet fully grasp how to bring these layers of inner experience into alignment with the work?
It’s because beginners don’t understand what it means that Kabbalah is a science, and that’s why it doesn’t touch those things. Like in a physics class, there are things that are not up for discussion because physics deals with more fundamental levers, talking about emotional states that are within the ego would be like computer programmers talking about what’s on the computer screen rather than the code. They’d consider doing so as ludicrous. It’s actually, like you said, noise, relative to the job at hand – though to the layperson, the images on the screen are the MAIN thing.
How does a person overcome the feeling that the friends don’t know what they are talking about sometimes?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
