- This topic has 2,546 replies, 145 voices, and was last updated hace 7 hours, 57 minutes by
.
- Respuestas
Hi Gianni, I am currently reading the book the Psychology of the integral Society. Two questions on that:
1) Which was the intention of this book? Some of it reads like a practical guideline, some a bit like a utopia. So, how to study it correctly?
2) In this book, but also from other ressources it’s mentioned that women would lack the opportunity to unite ;(Topic Boys and Girls, pg 222 and fillows in the softcover book). Which is why this approach in the book is considered to be primarily for boys and men… and there is only a little notion that for girls it might need a different programme. What is the source leading to this assumption and how should I relate to it as a woman? In this book it’s clearly not about the feminine or male sides of each human. Now, does this mean that BB states women due to their genetic code are unable to unite anyways? How shall I justify my work then… being a woman? Do women have a different way to reach bestowal, if they are already considered unable to unite, or is it time to pack up then?
No, rather I have a genetic code by which I’m a woman because of something deeper, the genetic code is just a middleman.
If we’re talking about a person in their basic human nature, then women, based on their completely different inner world than men have, cannot unite, because a woman is like a whole world by herself. She doesn’t truly need any other women. We can come up with a million exceptions to the rule, but in the end, they just clothe upon this rule and it remains eternally. Because a woman relates to the actual matter of Creation, the only thing there is in the Creation: Malchut. Man is something later in Creation, according to his root. And he is more inclined to connection, by nature. That’s why if you have some regular kids in our world, the way you work with them, to bring them to cooperation, if you understand human nature, will be different for boys and girls. There’s no way to give a good explanation of this here. It’s just endless.
Now, back to the spiritual explanation. Everyone starts as a “woman” – the basic matter of Creation without any adornments – I need to become a “man,” Adam, from the word domay (similar) to the Creator. And thus we all have to connect. Man and woman contain both parts (if they have a point in the heart), and need to make dominant the Point in the Heart, to הִתְגַּבֵּר” (hitgaber), overcome my desire of Malchut is to be a man, gevur, from the same Hebrew root ג־ב־ר (G–B–R).
Our bodies are just symbols, copies into matter from a higher level.
I don’t know what the intention of the book was, but it was something the Kabbalist wanted to put into the world, for a future time. For example, tomorrow I’ll be on The Great Transition podcast and we’ll hear some things Rav Laitman said years ago that was vexing at the time, that now we see match very well the reality of AI today. I think this book, though, teaches important things about the natures that exist in all of us, and also about the correction, which will be soon, because we’ll see that there’s no other choice.
Thank you Gianni, this is helpful. I feel I am getting an inner image of what this difference between male and female root. I wish to understand it deeper, to aim the more prescisely, and see where I might be flawed in my perception. Are there any further ressources on that? (I have a book on women in Kabbalah, and read the blog, and listened to New life sessions… but is there anything else). What is striking me is that women actually adapt to the men´s work, supporting them, but they don´t relate to their root specifically. Like in that example of raising girls and boys… if done in an integral way, they owuld need different surroundings. Then how can the women´s work be copied from the men´s work , if nature has designed us in a way that male and female are complementing and not the same.
We can also ask, “How can the created being, which is the property of Malchut, take on the form of the Creator, say, the property of Zeir Anpin?” We don’t go into the individual matter, but into the physics of each one rising above their matter. One who can do it – with the help of the Rav, group, books – is called male. Before that, he’s called female. Of course, each has problems on the way to this, according to one’s spiritual root.
Hi Gianni, I am grateful for this dialogue , … now, I understand that there are similarities and differences in the work of men and women, and there is the male and female part in each of us. Now, how are women supposed to work, what in this wisdom is supposedly their part to fulfill? I am ok to dedicate my life to this… but I am wondering what’s the point of trying to work like the men, if at the same time this is considered to not even work at all? I don’t have a gender issue. And I don’t like if it pops up in the work as such…and sometimes it does… but I don’t have an issue overcoming that. I just wish to give credit to the complementary structures of work of men and women. In order for women to not act like a second rate copy of men, how can they shape their work in accordance with nature to fulfill the complementary aspect of this work? And where is guidance in this to be found?
There’s no guidance specifically on this topic. You found the book, which was from a few comments Rav Laitman made here and there about it.
The Creator made you how you are, and wants your work. He prepared a reward for that work. Now you have to do it.
From my base, which is either a man or a woman, I need to try to connect with my friends, with as much of an intention as possible. At first, I have to do it with less of an intention. Then I am spiritually more in the female state, which means my work is more in nullification, support, heavy dissemination, actions for the sake of a spiritual reward, perhaps I even picture some corporeal reward but at least I’m working in the right general direction; I’m also orbiting the accurate laser-focused target, say, on those outer scoring rings of the bull’s eye: I’m getting closer to the center all the time, but, you know, I’m in somewhat more external orbits and that’s enough for me for now. I don’t yet demand a really internal approach. Internally, I’m trying to pray, but it’s still a false prayer, which is still something, but it’s not from the bottom of the heart, meaning a true prayer that comes out of the recognition of evil, from my true state, something I can truly turn to the Creator with. Also, I’m willing for it all to take a longer time: let it happen tomorrow, next week, but I’m committed to this path for life, so I don’t need to pull into this moment now all the work and prayer I plan to one day do. So, this is more like the work when I’m a spiritual female, but this is just for starters, and there’s no end to the explanation, nor will it ever be a satisfying one.
Both men and women need to perform their general role like electrons in their place and protons in theirs, while trying to connect in their tens, which will be in their own style, but for how they are built on the inside it will be relative Equivalence of Form with the quality of bestowal, the Creator. And relative here is enough for Equivalence of Form, which is the goal.
We can either call Atzilut the World of Correction, it’s usual moniker; or we can say that the world of Beria, Yetzira, and Assiya are also worlds of correction. These 3, BYA, are corrections on the way, in Ohr Hassidim without the fulfillment of Hochma. But even this is a sublime beautiful state above anything in this world. It’s not exile, but it’s not the achievement of Purpose of Creation either – because that means to be filled with the Light of the Purpose of Creation, Hochma, and not only with the Light of the correction of Creation, Hassidim.
I’m trying to understand what makes a True Prayer in the work.
Baal HaSulam writes:
“There are three conditions in prayer… [One of them is that] he must believe that he is in the worst condition of all his contemporaries… and if the Creator doesn’t help him, he would rather die than live.” (Shamati 209)But if I feel that low and pray for the Creator to give me vessels of bestowal, isn’t that still egoistic, because I’m suffering and want to feel something better?
How is that not a prayer for pleasure, just hidden in a more spiritual form?
Hi Dave,
There are many prayers leading up to the correct prayer from the bottom of the heart. We need to try to make it as correct as possible. But the main thing is to be always turning to the Creator. We always get an answer: another state, a refined prayer we need to raise to the Creator. If I see that my prayer is not correct, so ask for a more correct prayer, a more correct intention, desire, and so on. All along the way, for each state, we have to ask.
When it comes to connection there is the matter of receiving – receiving the other one, and for that openess is needed – which is actually the “giving” – and the intention to receive the other one – otherwise connection cannot be made (side-question: this would be receiving in order to receive connection!? This discernment comes first now writing, was not my intention, but the way is put says also that receiving is the bestowal – this is it, right?)
The (many) intended question(s): How can Keter (GE) from the lower one actually receive at all if it is pure bestowal? The connection between GE of the lower one and AHP of the higher one can be made only if GE receives in order to bestow? What process has the GE or Keter to be gone through so that it can receive? Does Keter contain Malchut, which would enable Keter to receive? And which is the “giving” of Malchut of AHP? The desire/intention for connection? This would mean that the Malchut is corrected in this case, but AHP means per se that it is uncorrected – or not? Is such desire/intention an act of bestowal?
And if Keter/ GE would feel shame – then it won’t be a true Keter/GE, right? That means that “in order to bestow” is stable there, incorporated?
This came up on basis of Shamati 17 yesterday and couldn’t ask completely. Thank you
How can Keter (GE) from the lower one actually receive at all if it is pure bestowal?
It can bestow in order to bestow, be a passageway for the Light, assuming it can be completely above it. You’re allowed to enter the treasury, but do not touch, do not even look.
What process has the GE or Keter to be gone through so that it can receive?
Keter is pure bestowal, doesn’t receive.
Does Keter contain Malchut?
Of course, all Sefirot are incorporated of all the others. But it’s Malchut of Keter. And that’s not the Malchut we’re talking about. So, no, Keter does not ‘contain Malchut’ in that sense.
And which is the “giving” of Malchut of AHP? The desire/intention for connection? This would mean that the Malchut is corrected in this case, but AHP means per se that it is uncorrected – or not? Is such desire/intention an act of bestowal?
Basically, bestowal to bestow means Equivalence of Form. I want to be connected, even as an embryo in the Upper One. Let’s say in all kinds of actions in the ten, for now, it’s in this direction.
And if Keter/ GE would feel shame – then it won’t be a true Keter/GE, right? That means that “in order to bestow” is stable there, incorporated?
Keter can’t feel shame because it’s only in bestowal. It lacks the material in which to feel shame, i.e. the Aviut of Malchut.
And when we say “I don’t receive anything more” – what is ment by this? Because then we wouldn’t attend any lesson or meetings with friends, because we would receive. To connect means – also – to receive, is an aspect of connecting. I hear smth and can’t make it unheard, I received it.
No, we’re allowed to receive all our necessities, the tiny pleasures of this world that don’t interfere with spirituality. The joy of connection, the joy of the study of Kabbalah, we have to receive. It’s not even called “reception”. Against those states, a person is given alternative states, in which I see that that reception was only to later be able to pay for it with my efforts. If I can fill my life with the joys of similarity with the Creator, through the ten, I’m in a very good state. The Will to Receive does not agree to live in this all the time, which is why one will surely have to receive help from the friends.
I look forward to Sunday, my 10 and friends. I also look forward to Tuesday and Thursday and I always feel good and clear. However, the next day, almost each time after the classes, I am having a terrible time. I go into a very deep descent and it frightens me. My husband and I have had a very challenging 3 years, from losing our home, to his sickness, to moving, to my daughter’s illness of 2 years then finally her death. Each time this happens, I cry desperately and beg God to help me. He always does and then I have relief. However, these deep lows scare me. I am studying and reading as much as I can and just sitting quietly. I have many deep incites also. It’s not just all happy/miserable. However, I would like it to even out a little. Do you have any other advice?
Hi Gianni, there was an andwer from Rav saying „M. Laitman: That is, from the worst possible state that we are in, if we are able to connect with the Creator, then it can become the best possible state, the most beneficial, the strongest one because from the lowest state, I connect to the Creator who is the highest.“
How is „lowest“ perceived? Is it a matter of distance from the creator? Of feeling separated?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.