- This topic has 2,710 replies, 148 voices, and was last updated hace 5 hours, 23 minutes by
.
- Respuestas
Last night I was reading the Zohar before bed and this one item (92) stood out to me so much that I woke up with a load of questions:
“92) It has already been explained that due to the ascent of the bottom Hey to Nikvey Eynaim, which occurred in the second restriction, when the Katnut of the ten Sefirot of Nekudim emerged, each degree divided into two halves: Galgalta and Eynaim remained in the degree, for which they are called anterior vessels, and Ozen, Hotem, Peh, which fell from the degree to the one below it, are therefore called posterior vessels, as it is written in Item 76. Thus, each degree is now twofold, made of internality and externality, since the posterior vessels of the upper degree fell to the internality of its own anterior vessels. The fallen AHP of Keter of Nekudim are clothed inside Galgalta and Eynaim of AVI, and the fallen AHP of AVI are clothed inside Galgalta and Eynaim of ZAT of Nekudim.”
– (from page 142 in Zohar for All Volume 1 in English.)Ok, first question is about anterior/posterior and internality/externality:
I’m trying to understand the relationship between anterior/posterior and internality/externality in this passage.My current understanding is that anterior/posterior describes orientation to the Light (what can face it vs. what must turn away), while internality/externality describes participation within a degree (what is active vs. sidelined)… what has meaning and what doesn’t (yet.)
Is it correct to say that posterior (unusable) vessels of an upper degree can become the internality (meaning/focus) of a lower degree… not spatially, but functionally … when they fall and are clothed by the lower’s anterior vessels? Why would that be? That a desire unusable at a higher degree could somehow be worked with by a less advanced degree? Because it’s coarser?
Second question “posterior falling into internality”:
In the sentence “the posterior vessels of the upper degree fell to the internality of its own anterior vessels,”is the correct interpretation that the posterior of the upper becomes internal to the lower degree’s functioning, rather than the upper folding into itself?
I’m asking because spatial interpretations seem to fail here, and I’m trying to understand this relationally rather than geometrically.
Third question is about who “does” the correction:
In this passage, the actions seem to be described from the perspective of the upper degree reclaiming its AHP and lifting the lower with it. But I thought that the lower always initiates and that’s why it seems like we’re always talking from the perspective of the lower one.Is it accurate to say that while the lower initiates correction by adhesion and raising MAN, the execution always occurs from above, and that this is why the Zohar narrates it from the upper’s side?
Last question (this might not relate. I’m comparing it to something I experienced.)
Experientially, this mechanism feels similar to a state where the lower does not receive Light directly, but positions itself behind another (friend/group), allowing bestowal to pass through alignment rather than possession.Is it valid to understand this as the lived experience of ZAT adhering to the posterior of the upper during Katnut, prior to Gadlut? Basically, it is adhering to the desire of its “friend” which is the experience of who the “upper” is here? (in my experience it also seemed like the friend is the screen, because the friend receives and light instead.) Is this why connection is a necessary prerequisite condition for advancement?
I hope that all makes sense. That one sentence really threw me.
I’m trying to understand the relationship between anterior/posterior and internality/externality in this passage.
These have the same meaning. Anterior = internality. Posterior = externality. One over the other is used, depending what we want to emphasize about that state.
Is it correct to say that posterior (unusable) vessels of an upper degree can become the internality (meaning/focus) of a lower degree… not spatially, but functionally … when they fall and are clothed by the lower’s anterior vessels? Why would that be? That a desire unusable at a higher degree could somehow be worked with by a less advanced degree? Because it’s coarser?
Let’s say the way I talk to my 2 year old. It’s not goo goo ga ga. But it is leveled-down many degrees from my own degree. However, for the child, it’s actually something high, to be aspired to. While for me, if I didn’t have kids, those modes with which I behave toward my kid, and from which they can even take an example for how to grow, for me they would be refuse.
Second question “posterior falling into internality”:
In the sentence “the posterior vessels of the upper degree fell to the internality of its own anterior vessels,”is the correct interpretation that the posterior of the upper becomes internal to the lower degree’s functioning, rather than the upper folding into itself?
I’m asking because spatial interpretations seem to fail here, and I’m trying to understand this relationally rather than geometrically.
All these are states, experiences of spiritual life. But these are the ways Kabbalists can accurately depict them. Yes, the posterior of the Upper One is holiness to the lower one so that before me always is the posterior of the Upper Degree, which I need to match in my qualities. I couldn’t match the Upper One itself, like my 2 year old has no hope of even comprehending what I am truly, but can somehow grow if I come down to her, restricting practically all that I am and opening just a bit, something that is near her mind and emotion.
Third question is about who “does” the correction:
In this passage, the actions seem to be described from the perspective of the upper degree reclaiming its AHP and lifting the lower with it. But I thought that the lower always initiates and that’s why it seems like we’re always talking from the perspective of the lower one.This is describing the system. We’re not in this picture. It’s not even shattered yet. We are.
Is it accurate to say that while the lower initiates correction by adhesion and raising MAN, the execution always occurs from above, and that this is why the Zohar narrates it from the upper’s side?
It’s not about us, our bodies, the friends’ bodies. This is about a complete system, the minimum unit of which is a ten.
As I said above.Experientially, this mechanism feels similar to a state where the lower does not receive Light directly, but positions itself behind another (friend/group), allowing bestowal to pass through alignment rather than possession.
Is it valid to understand this as the lived experience of ZAT adhering to the posterior of the upper during Katnut, prior to Gadlut? Basically, it is adhering to the desire of its “friend” which is the experience of who the “upper” is here? (in my experience it also seemed like the friend is the screen, because the friend receives and light instead.) Is this why connection is a necessary prerequisite condition for advancement?
In the ten, all our work consists of actions that are trying to come closer to spiritual actions. Later, we will be able to see how all of Rabash’s words can be translated into spiritual language. But practicing on the simple level is adequate for what we have to do. Knowing more is interesting but won’t help.
Thanks Gianni, I highly appreciate your answers. They have been very helpful. Just one more- how can we come from a state of duty/obligation towards the friends to a state of true connection and not hinder each other from advancing by remaining content with what we have ? It’s so easily happening that we get into “routines”… meeting here, meeting there… but it stays on a level of “doing the job” without coming any closer.
That’s the nature of the ego, to be content with little when having more will require greater efforts than the known reward. And we’re dealing with an unknown reward. We have to promote it to each other. You have advertisement for all kinds of things that are actually terrible for you. 90% of what we’re doing and running after we’ll find out later is terrible and you’re only running after it because you were sold a narrative that will benefit someone up there who isn’t you. In short, I can be convinced of anything; that’s how I’m built. They can imprint in me that I want to be fat, skinny, short, tall, alive, dead. Anything. That’s so that we would be able to convince each other that bestowal is good, even though bestowal is really a dead mouse you’re selling door-to-door for $10,000. That’s because the Creator concealed the sublimity in it so that we wouldn’t run after it like we’d run after the greatest pleasures of reception that exist. He concealed bestowal, so it’d be disgusting. Now, against that, you have to promote it like it’s the greatest thing imaginable. If it comes from promotion between us, then it can already be attained through free choice. This is practically your only work. Like Brad Pitt can stand there promoting some cologne that smells like the sewer, you need to promote love of friends, self-annulment, the greatness of each friend, bestowal…
Sorry, but there is one more questions… what is closer to annulment and connection… no one matters or everone matters?
(I am trying to not give further explanations anymore to the initial question… not sure if it works… the questions come from states, but the states have no words… so I don’t know if I can make myself understood this way… but I try… so if it’s not clear I will try again)
A Kabbalist can’t be lonely in that sense. But one can long for the other parts of their soul. If youre asking at the simple level, the state of a Kabbalist is the farthest thing from lonliness because all that we chase and long for in the world is closeness to the Creator, except that with a small desire, I settle for clothings upon the Light, rather than the Creator Himself. If I have contact with the Creator – that’s it, there’s no such thing as lonely.
I am sorry to jump in as this is my question as well. before machsom we do not perceive the Creator, we can’t discuss with our corporeal circle, we are not allow to share descends and struggles that may have the potential to bring friends down, often it feels very lonely. maybe it’s different for man. is it okay to share with who are also on the journey but not in your Ten?
In our basic nature, you’re right that a woman’s nature is very different. But at the level of Kabbalah, the work is the same. A woman’s nature is much more to want to talk it out. And a woman is less satisfied in general, and more serious. You can share in your ten, but every story should have a happy ending – and not take up too much time. Meaning you can briefly share the story of how you are overcoming. It’s not a support group whatsoever. Every meeting should impart hope, aspiration, strength to overcome, and love of friends. You could also do it in the form of a question to the ten, “how do you overcome________and return to thoughts of the spiritual goal?” Something along those lines that is close to your heart.
It’s amazing how many aspects I discover in the very first scene described in the revealed Torah – of Genesis of Adam and Eve – this is probably because of society shaping I went through, we were told such fairy tales, for which I am even ashamed today. But however, Because of this God wanted conditioning I learn best trough this, since the reshimot is shaped like this.
We always say “there is none else besides Him”. He created everything what is. We justify everything coming and being given by Him. And that ok. But He made everything, the fearful animal too. As He made the human being, called “the crown of His creation”, – in this one He blew His own Spirit through the nostrils. He did this only with the being we call today ‘human being being created in His image’. When we say ‘none else besides Him’, and we assiciate ourselves wirh animal cravings, behaviours, reactions, saying ‘is everything will to receive – ni! Is not everything the same will to receive! The human one is bearing His Spirit, His Will, His quality. It is different of that of an animal he created! Than Satan, or Sitra Achra, who suckles the vitality of Him, of His blew Divinity into us! Who wants us to identify wirh only an animal He has created!? He, or His adversary, which can not even be true!?
None of the Torah is talking about us. If you understand an atom, it also has the same properties as we do, but on a different degree; and so on, up to the monkey, who also talks in his own language. What do we have that is special, let alone in the image of the Creator? Nothing. The only thing that is special about us is that we’re stupider than the rest of the animal kingdom to which we belong. Animals don’t ruin their own homes, but that’s what we’re doing to the Earth, the only planet that can truly house us. Also, it’s not that the Creator looks like us. We are only structured like our Upper Degree, for us called “Creator.” And that’s only in one sense, that there is, unlike a cow, for example, a head above the body and not on the same plane as the body. We’re structured like that, standing up, with a head atop our torso, only as an imprint of our future, inner degree, where the intention rides upon the desire like a Rosh [head] to the body [desire]. But for now, we’re not like that. Our head is exactly on the plane of our desire, led by our desire, even below it, following its whim. And so we’re not in the image of the Creator at all. The Torah is not about us in our current form.
An related to that – another aspect, same important:
If the human created being is put on the same level with an animal, then the purpose of creation for him might be to receive delight and pleasure. But because He blew (blown, however) His Spirit of Life into him, and by that the human created being cannot be considered only just an animal, the purpose of creation was actually to be in relationship and to enjoy that relationship! And this is treated like smth secundary, which we have to achieve, and is consequently always skiped over, when we always say ‘to receive delight and pleasure’, while it is actually the main thing! And from that relationship – whatever and however may come will be delightful! And in this transformation and growing process we go through – we have to be clear and strong in our purpose, because it can be so painful when our focus is not the right one we when we don’t clearly know our fundamental conditions. Is like one cannot even make a step more in growing, in transforming. To receive delight and pleasure feels right now like another desception of the serpent, ment to cover and diguise the true purpose – of being in relationship with the Good Who Does Good. Is this true?
Again, the Torah never meant to talk about your biological body, which is a complete machine, like a mosquito. It can live, die, more of them can be born. There’s nothing special about it or its feeling that it is alive or not. The Torah is talking about something I become only in the incorporation with a ten. There begins the life of the created being, Adam [man].
Hi Gianni, what is actually true connection? And how can we build enough faith to keep trying, in spite of all the shattering? This is really a question that is bothering me. I understand it’s bouncing in and out of connection, but so far far…I experienced connection to be a feebly momentary state… and most of the work to be either habits/routines without any inner connection OR there was something that felt like connection but then people would bounce out of it and leave it shattered. Maybe my observation is wrong or I got a dark part of the map to discover… but I am starting to be completely clueless… I feel like we are unable to connect. And now I wonder… it says to light up the point in the heart it needs the society… so what needs to be the properties of the society? And what needs to be the intention in the work if people come together? Is there anything that makes true connection possible? And what needs to be the inner attitude towards this in and out of connection? I understand the ego wants to protect us… but it’s pulling us out of connection… so how do we get above that? How can we stop it from preventing us to truly connect. Not with words, not by saying “ I annul”, but by DOING it? How can we tear down the walls of our intellect that is very smart and gives us all the beautiful phrases we learned to repeat in the workshop rounds… empty treasure boxes, not filled with love or the states we name.
It’s better if you scrutinize a single question. If it’s not scrutinized, I’m not allowed to do the scrutiny for you.
The center of gravity needs to be on you being the only one who needs to connect: whatever friends are in front of you are in the End of Correction, waiting for you to join them there. In the meantime, you have an avatar of those friends. Until you change, you’re going to find some depiction of the certain kind of flaws that are in you. Reality is your mirror. Answer all your questions with this.
Well, that Rabash took at least 20 articles to explain. Elevating the friends as great, stepping on myself until I feel I’m nothing and a heel (it’s not complete without both self-hatred and love of friends); Tzimzum [restriction], Masach [screen], Ohr Hozer [Reflected Light]. Some of the signs would be that I think of the ten and not myself; that I worry about them and not myself; that I play the perfect friend, one who inspires them ever higher from day to day, moment to moment (after all, that’s what I would do if I were either in spirituality or truly wanted to be – so I can at least act this way as a gesture). I don’t care what is done with me. The society can do whatever it wishes with me as I have no desire of my own, like a fetus that eats whatever comes to it. And this is the preparation for spirituality because true connection entails actual separation from my Will to Receive. That’s impossible to imagine. And this is so that, above it, I will be able to use it to bestow to the Creator.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.