- This topic has 2,714 replies, 149 voices, and was last updated 12 hours, 49 minutes ago by
.
- Replies
Like protons and electrons make up the atom, residing in their separate clouds, men and women make up the soul of Adam HaRishon.
How do we convince the Creator that if He gives us delight and pleasure, it will bring Him contentment?
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.