- This topic has 2,546 replies, 145 voices, and was last updated hace 7 hours, 58 minutes by
.
- Respuestas
Hello,
Foremost, Thank You.
I wonder if you can help me to verify the understanding I have of Unity.
First, I am in Young Group M29. I wonder if I should be asking this question without asking it first in my group.
Second, the reason I am asking the following question, is because I would like to present this idea my group as I think it will help my friends.
Third, I am having an understanding of Unity within the 10, as Adhesion to each other. The experience of that quality equivalent in form to Adhesion to Him.
In the corporeal world, but also in the forces behind the corporeal world:
The thing called Unity in the Group 10 has has two parts: 1. things that we have in common, “Things in which we are the same,” AND 2. things that we have not in common, “Things in which we differ”
Within the Group, both have to be revealed.
Things that area revealed, and in which we are the same, adhere to each other like magnets. Things that are the same are One. These bond in Unity.
Now, to the things in which we differ. These also have to be revealed. But there are two pieces to these things in which we differ: 1. is the thing in which we differ, like Person 1 likes color Yellow, and Person 2 likes color Blue, AND 2. Is this difference revealed, or known, and Accepted.
The Acceptance of the difference nullifies the difference. In effect, the difference that Person 1 likes color Yellow and Person 2 likes the color Blue, this difference, when accepted, is absorbed, and becomes part of the Group.
This action nullifies the difference, and the Group is also in Unity, with the differences, and in fact in total Unity.
Now I am combining corporeal acts and assigning the reconciliation of differences through knowledge of its existence and acceptance.
In spiritual world the difference is corrected in the Group by Reforming Light.
The difference itself is NOT important, the correction occurs in spite the fact that Person 1 continues to prefer the color Yellow, and Person 2 prefers color Blue.
The final thought here is, that if the above mechanism works like that, then we should explore all differences, welcome discord, all correction. Through knowing that we can raise these to the Creator for correction, is the practice and strengthen Unity.
Am I looking at it in logical way?
Thank you,
Peter
Hi Peter,
It’s very logical and in the right direction. Is it exactly correct? Exactly correct is what’s written in Rabash and Baal HaSulam. It’s a good exercise to take their articles and rewrite them for oneself, to make them clearer, more understood. Later, we’ll see that we need to gradually change back everything we changed, to how they had it. They wrote the manual for our soul. As we ascend the degrees, which are vastly different, these writings turn out to be universally applicable, true each time in a new way.
But it’s good to think for oneself too, and however you think about it is good if it leads to actions of connection.
Thank you kindly for such detail answer. I am still absorbing it, but a lot I understood.
I would like to ask another question please. I was watching Rav today at the Convention. A question was asked on how to correct a deficiency. And Rav responded with something specific like that the deficiency should be directed towards the group and the Creator may correct that deficiency.
I begin to wonder if what he was saying was something very specific. If one wants to correct a deficiency in oneself, the correction must go through the group. Meaning, asking the Creator to correct a deficiency in me is not the way to correct it. So I thought that prayer for correction, simple and specific about a deficiency has to be asked for/through the group first, then within each individual including oneself, and then outer like to other groups, Israel, Nations.
Prayer must have the right intent, be for the Good of His creations. It must be simple/specific. Bestowal is also simple specific, and bestowal cannot be given to one, or a group. Bestowal always is for all and affects all. So the prayer has to mirror that. In qualities “the” ask” itself has to be in a similar form as “the gift.”
As an example, I want to correct my inability to trust (and without trust there can be no faith, and vice versa), I would:
1. State the intention (I usually say thank you as well, and that I am doing it for His content)
2. Then ask first for the correction of Trust for the group
3. Ask for correction within each individual within the group, inclusive of me
4. Ask for correction for “outside” the group, other groups, Israel, Nations.
Is that the flow we should follow in asking for correction?
I understand I am looking at this very specifically, very sequentially, corporeally. However, that helps me in increasing the feeling of what I am asking, how I am asking, and why I am asking.
Thank you,
Peter
Adding 2 more questions:
1. We talk much about “making connection” and this sounds and feels like we are about to make an action which will build something, while actually it is about accepting the connection, because it is already there. Is about revealing it, of course by removing the “walls” and the resistence each of us puts within himself against it, but the connection is existent. These are even like 2 different dimentions with different approaches/qualities. Wouldn’t bring us a step further to consider that the connection is already there and that the “action of making” is about opening ourselves up for what already is there anyway? This is more like “un-doing”. Considering “there is none else besides Him” – it implies that we anyway cannot hide anymore and also that we are already connected and have to be in order to be in that state.
2. I observe in general – am curious to know if it is only my perception/just me – kind of subtle disception or distraction from applying the things we are suppossed to – we answer questions, or we scrutinize things and we subconsciously kind of replace applying with saying things. (When we make decisions, or make efforts to build importance and grow desire and the right intention, whatever) they stay expressed but not implemented, not integrated within us and our actions – I mean our whole environment. What can we do here to not let ourselves being like “hypnotized” by expressing things having the feeling they are done, but to also apply them?
Thank you!
1. Yes, the friends are already in Gmar Tikkun, and you with them. But what matters is your perception of it.
2. You’re right, the first step is hearing, then doing. And the inclination is naturally to stay at a more external circle. The ego doesn’t want me to actually internalize it and start connecting my heart to the friends’ hearts.
Hi Gianni, I have to clarify some things about the work before this important congress we will go through.
- already in our YGs we are suppossed to apply the main principles Rabash describes in his writings: every friend of the environment is a part of one’s soul, so they are a mirror, the work is to consider oneself as the last and the lowest and the lesst important putting the friends first, aiming to be like one man with one heart, to love them, to elevate them rising high spirits, providing them with what they need – whereby this is found out on 2 strings,
1. by observing oneself internally (reactions, thoughts, evaluations = revelation of ones evil)
2. praying for own correction AND for the friends good, which is found out by listening to the Creator what He wants one to provide for them through one or through other ways. If one sees a flaw in the friend = own flaw, of the “see-er” – taking responsability for it and accepting and seeking to correct oneself – is this even an act of bestowal?, yes, right? Every friend of the environment is suppossed to do this – by this + covenant of holding together no matter what – the Arvut and the building of the Kli in an balanced way are ensured. – Is this all correct ?- Concerning high spirits and building the importance of the Creator and the desire to bestow:
1. one might present articles which are pointing out to some „flaws“ of the friends aiming to induct his „correction“ according to what is written – here is to scrutinize to what extent the work in the environment is really done by all or not done. We are all in the collectiv process and everyone has his individual process. Is about feeling and praying how is best.
2. one might present articles which are opening up new dimensions of thinking or feeling, which are revealing the greatness of the friends and of the Creator, which inspire. Is this correct?- Questions:
- Everyone has his package he brings in, his qualities, his way of being. There are mind people and heart people, some are more fix some are more flexible. Anyway due to the given framework everyone is under the influence of the environment. So, if one is a reaction on his environment, to which extent can he take and carry the responsibility for his reaction or his state and which is the responsibility of the environment?
- When a friend A demands from one B to do some aspects of the work A means the B doesn’t do, but B does that aspect of the work, but A doesn’t see it – what is there and how to deal with this, when we take into account the principle of mirroring and annulment?
- When one sees something in the friend – he has to correct his perception about the friend in himself and mirror that correction back to the friend in expression or deeds – is this correct? That’s why we’re saying „acting by example“, we find that, what we see as flaw in ourselves and correct it within ourselves- according to framework?
There are some more, but these are the main points for now, together with appology for the length and with thanks.
When I correct myself, there will be no flaws in the environment since my friends are already at the end of correction. Once I accept this, I decide to behave as if they are corrected, and I want to be together with them, in whatever they are, however they are – as if it’s correct – above reason. I don’t try to correct them in any way, nor even check them. Maybe they need to appear that way, for now, for the way that I need to be. To expect any change in them means I had hoped to stay how I am, and that reality, the friends, will change instead of me – then I’m at odds with what’s possible in Creation.
Hi Gianni, I have got a question on how Bina works on Malchut (refering to „the Zohar Annotations to the Ashlag comentary, 49. Vision of RabbiChiya). I understood that Malchut by itself, consisting only of the will to receive, cannot correct itself. But then there is this „infusion“ of Bina into Malchut, over the 6000 degrees or years of correction, which gradually transforms Malchutś intention (not its essence). Ia mtrying to understand how Bina works in Malchut, how the Bina energy effects as in our will to receive, as it gradually helps us transform out intention. Is it like a constant flow of that unconditional will to bestow (Bina) into that darkness of Malchut (will to receive), which slowly, degree by the degree permeates Malchut (changing Malchuts intention, not itsessence, into „wanting to receive in order to bestow“)? Or is it that the part of Malchut de Malchut (will to receive) becomes smaller and smaller as the Zivugim are performed on the properties of Bina in Malchut (creating places for the will to receive to change its intention into bestowal)?
In the first case I would understand the will to bestow permeates the will to receive through changing its intention gradually, bit by bit, like blending white into black, and bit by bit the dark colour becomes lighter and turns from black to anthrazite to dark grey, to lighter grey… In the second case I would understand that the will to receive makes space to the will to bestow but remains as dark as it was before… like adding blots of white to a black-coloured place, thus creating ore or less strong contrasts of white next to black. I feel this is something different, in terms of how it affects the work, how it may effect the resistance one feels in the work. Therefore I am asking. Because in the first case I would suppose it is a gradual process, maybe not even tangible, in the second, I would suppose the more Bina is infused into Malchut, the more resistance will grow, … I dońt have other words to describe it better… :)) Thank you
The quality of Malchut stays as it is. It was created as an absolute Will to Receive. But there are parts of Malchut that, through the Reforming Light, can agree to be under the control of Bina – essentially to be under the Masach [screen]. Because all the Sefirot are incorporated, there are parts of Malchut that nevertheless belong to higher qualities. For example, Keter of Malchut; Hochma of Malchut; Bina of Malchut. The parts whose only correction is their sorting and being left alone are the Lev HaEven [stony heart], Malchut de Malchut. They also don’t change but get left until the Gmar Tikun [final correction] when a special force – rav paalim makabtzil – does an operation upon them that corrects them. I can’t imagine it, but this is what Kabbalists write.
In the “Spiritual States with Kabbalist Dr.Michael Laitman” playlist on YouTube there’s an episode on the Ten Commandments, and one on Prophecies. My interpretation of the two is conflicting.
In the Ten Commandments one the Rav says describes 5th Commandment – Honor thy Father and thy Mother. I think he’s saying we must maintain an attitude of receptivity. If we are trying to control or dictate the world, we’ll create it in our own likeness which is egoistic, and it will only harm us. We must allow Hochma and Bina (our father and mother, and their 6 derivative forces) to create our reality. Our role is to work on our internality so that we can accurately perceive its qualities. He goes on later in the Commandment about the sabbath to say that it works specifically by not interfering.
But in the Prophecies episode, in the section about why a person shouldn’t know about their future, he says that we have difficult corrections coming up that might look harrowing to us, but that we will be better prepared and able to make the final corrections. And he goes on in the next section to say we need to create our own future. We need to be convinced we’re making our present as well. And that everything appears in relation to the perceiver. It sounds like there is an expectation for a proactive attitude.
So I think I’m trying to reconcile the idea of being receptive with the idea of applying effort. How do I know when I’m interfering? How do I know when I’m expected to be active or passive?
Hi Logynn,
If you take something from here and from there, of course you can find a contradiction. How can there be a proton but also an electron? We have to build something that consists of many opposing parts. We can say, though, that we always apply efforts. It doesn’t matter if they seem ‘egoistic’ as long as they’re in the direction of the spiritual goal, closer to connection, and so on. From not with an intention of for the Creator’ we come to the intention of for the Creator.
. . . speaking of contradictions… I know I keep pestering you with this question about “graven images” in different ways. But it’s really an idea my mind chews on and turns over and over constantly. I was watching the video about the days of creation and the Rav Ravsays that after the initial stages our work is to write the Torah on our own heart. The context was about a person implementing the Torah in their own life.
I am an artist and writer, and I can understand how it’s impossible to depict these concepts we are learning as pictures. If a client came to me with an assignment for that at first I’d be excited, and then once I understood the concepts, I’d have to decline. As you say, it is impossible.
But when the Rav was talking about the person creating the Torah in their life it occurred to me that you created a curriculum, or individual classes where the story took the person on a path where they depicted the concepts to themselves in their feelings. And the world itself seems like that. The corporeal objects and situations take us on a path where we learn the laws by interacting with them and we depict the true reality inside our feelings. Since this is the case, would it not be possible to make games in this way? The obvious example would be an RPG game with a campaign of ordered scenarios, structurally like Gloomhaven. The maps, the materials, the currency, the characters… they wouldn’t really matter. But if you made the mechanics of the gameplay work in a way that rewarded cooperation, generosity, balancing . . . like, let’s say you modeled all the rewards, buffs, boosters, timers, unlocks, etc on the Rav’s description of the Ten Commandments… but never depicted them as commandments at all. And you arranged the scenario conditions and order in a path kind of like your course syllabus might take a student to encounter a series of metaphors in order to build an internal understanding.
I feel I might have already played a game called Journey that might have been designed to do this.
Would this kind of project be a more appropriate way to work through my notes and studies when I have this constant urge to “do something,” “apply effort,” (MAKE SOMETHING, ANYTHING) and “write the Torah on my own heart,” when I can’t draw it as pictures or tell it as stories to people who don’t study?
I know I am being led on a very long path that I have not gone very far on. It’s clear to me that I’m being shown each increment of it. I have no desire to become a teacher or try to lead other people on it. But would this be an appropriate format that I could work with it myself without it being a “graven image?”
Thanks for you patience with the questions… as always.
Maybe you want to jump the gun a bit, so it seems as though you’re lacking what to do to advance. I think soon you’ll have more than enough. I don’t think various artistic expressions are going to help. You’re right that there could be a game that is more oriented toward the goal of life. However, it’s not that it would work as swimmingly as you imagine. First, I’d need to know how to build it – not technically but internally. Then, though, the user ultimately would, after some superficial external play, need to learn the wisdom of Kabbalah and discover an inner game. There is the real game, and it can’t be externalized. We don’t have any kind of technology like it.
Hi Gianni,
I have been working on Shamati 1. I am not familiar with the expression “It is lighter than my head,” can you help me out with this?
Thanks!
Greg
It originates in the sayings of ancient Kabbalists: קלני מראשי (kalani mi-roshi), an idiomatic expression, which here means, “I suffer more” than you, the person, because I, the Shichina, include everyone in me – while your suffering is only a part of the suffering of the whole. Not to mention that it’s one’s choice to suffer instead of complete the correction, while the Creator has to wait for us to exercise our free choice in this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.