- This topic has 1,557 replies, 119 voices, and was last updated hace 43 minutes by
.
- Respuestas
I don’t know to express it well…
Is all our work leading us to that state of Oneness? Is it, for example, I work for the connection of the friends, I hold the one single thought of bestowing to Him with an intention to give back to the Creator? For the sake of the revelation of His Godliness to His created beings? It is just like we are taking back everything to Him. That means there’s no TWO but ONE
I have a question about our relationship with the Creator, particularly in light of Shamati 16, which describes how the Creator does not receive or need anything from us. It mentions that our relationship is like a game to the Creator, as expressed in the phrase, “He sits and plays with a whale,” referencing the verse, “There go the ships, and Leviathan, which You have formed to sport in it” (Avoda Zarah, p. 3). A teacher once explained that the whale alludes to the final correction, symbolizing the full rectification of the will to receive. However, I’m still pondering the meaning of the word ‘play’ in this context. What does it mean that the Creator ‘plays’ with the whale? Is this play something ongoing with creation—meaning, is He playing with us now—or does it only occur at the end of correction?
Additionally, is play a strong mechanism for connection with the friends? For example, I ‘play’ with the friends, giving and pretending to receive, but deep down, I don’t actually care to receive anything. Is it like playing a board game with my son—winning and losing is just for sport, but I’m really doing it because I enjoy spending time with him? Is this a good understanding of how the Creator relates to us?
A couple of questions: I don’t want to get the corporeal meaning of gid ha-nasheh confused with the spiritual one. What does it mean Kabalistically? I can’t run from what I don’t know… Next on my list is: I love my friends and pray for them often. In the back of my mind, I know I am also praying for myself, and that is egoistic, isn’t it? I want to pray for their spiritual welfare properly. Is this an exception to the rule? If not, how do we resolve this conflict of interest for his sake?
Continue this way, the Surrounding Light nevertheless works and corrects the prayers.
About this detail of the halacha I don’t want to expand. It’s such details in the Sefirot…it’s not the work in front of us and I recommend, if you do keep that, to continue in a purely external way.
Thank you, Gianni; this is a great comfort to me. Prayer is something I can do! As for the halacha, I had no idea what that was, so I had to look it up, but I won’t worry about it. The gid ha-nesheh came up because I had a memory of Jacob wrestling with the angel, and I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it.
I’ve been revisiting Pticha and have a question about the screen. The screen is described as having two qualities: aviut(coarseness) and kashiut (hardness). I understand aviut, but I’m a bit confused about kashiut. Specifically, does having a harder screen make it better or worse in terms of being an effective screen? One source I read suggested that the harder the screen, the more stubborn we are, making it harder to correct. But I also got the impression that a harder screen might actually be more effective in resisting the light for self-gratification. Could you clarify this for me?
I also have another question about the screen in relation to the light. The text states that the screen ‘strikes the light,’ rather than the light striking the screen. In corporeal terms, we usually understand the light as always striking something, not the other way around. Why is it written this way? Is there any significance to this phrasing? Thanks!
A harder Screen is better, more resistant, able to reject the Light. This rejection, we can say is the Screen striking the Light. You’ll find throughout the wisdom of Kabbalah that it talks from the side of the Kli sometimes, and sometimes from the side of the Light. Usually we say the Light strikes the Screen.
Hi, I thought that this world is only our imagination, and when we reach spirituality it will disappear. What societies are we talking about now (in the retreat)?
And if there is no spirituality without corporeality, and corporeality is only a fiction of an uncorrected will to receive, don’t these two cancel each other out?
Thank you in advance!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.