- This topic has 2,513 replies, 143 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 15 hours ago by
.
- Replies
Hi Gianni,
As we are in the preparation period, no Kli yet. and when there is no Kli, there is no light….so without light, what’s correcting us so we can cross the Machsom?
thanks as always
Helen
Shalom! Today, a friend and I were discussing how the Ein Sof contracted its infinity in order to create the finite world in which we live. In an attempt to understand this better, we constructed two mental models and wonder if either, both, or neither is correct. Model #1: God actually sacrificed His infinity in order to create the finite. But then, does that mean that God is no longer infinite? Or is God just a different type of infinity now? (For example, in math, we can have varying sizes of infinite sets.) Model #2: Or is it more like this analogy: suppose we have the infinite set of whole numbers (all positive and negative integers). Within this infinite set, we can create a finite, closed set (for example, the set of numbers from 1-10). This finite set exists in its own defined right yet is still interwoven and contained within the greater Infinity.
Or is it something else that defies either model? Todah rabah!
This math is not above time and space, and true everywhere. It’s consistency is generated by the consistency of our will to receive, which is infinite in its relentless drive for fulfillment. And it is from after the Restriction. So before the restriction, there’s no concept of the infinite. Eyn Sof, translated as infinite, means completely fulfilled, referring to the desire – whatever size the desire is. If there is more light than that, I don’t know. I just know as much desire as I have, the cup is entirely full. Maybe it’s a thimble, but it’s filled.
Ah, thank you again! So, if I understand your answer correctly, infinity is qualitative, not quantitative. Every vessel (even a finite world) can be infinitely fulfilled because it is filled completely according to its capacity, no matter what its size (thimble-sized, gallon-sized, etc.). Infinity isn’t a number line; it’s a state of perfect desire and perfect fulfillment. Before creation, there was only this perfection, so no ‘infinity’ could be conceived. After creation, the vessels (finite beings) experience lack — and through their fulfillment, they taste the Infinite again.
If I may take this one step further: my original question was really about what happens within the Ein Sof Itself during the act of restriction. I understand that, from the perspective of the vessels, the Light becomes concealed so that independent perception and desire can emerge. But does anything actually occur within the Ein Sof in that process?
I’ve read that some Lurianic interpretations describe a real contraction — as if the Infinite genuinely withdraws its presence — while later Hasidic readings speak of concealment only, meaning that the Infinite remains fully present but hidden from our awareness.
Could you clarify which of these best reflects the tradition you’re teaching? In other words, is Tzimtzum understood as an actual change in the Divine, or purely as a shift in the way creation perceives the Divine Light? Todah rabah!
Both are correct, no contradiction. There’s no question that we’re in concealment, and it’s only in our perception. It’s written, “I, the Lord, do not change.” And that’s because Malchut of Eyn Sof restricted itself – so that it would never again receive pleasure unless it was unquestionably in order to bestow, in Equivalence with the Upper Light. This is what is written in the Ari’s poem: https://kabbalahmedia.info/en/sources/UncaTFGA The desire was unlimited (Eyn Sof, no restriction), and now there is a restriction, a stern limit. The Light hasn’t changed; but a concealment was placed over it, so that we would not realize we’re in the king’s treasury and start stealing.
Wow, what a beautiful answer. Mind blown, and I truly appreciate it! This makes sense now. So, the restriction isn’t a literal diminishment of the Infinite but rather the concealment necessary for the will to receive to awaken, mature, and learn to receive in order to bestow. The Light itself remains unchanged; only perception shifts, allowing creation to discover equivalence with the Divine.
What I think you’re also saying is that the apparent paradox between Lurianic contraction and Hasidic concealment is merely dialectical and not oppositional. Specifically, from the human or vessel perspective (the lower), the contraction feels real: there truly is distance, darkness, limitation. Yet from the Divine perspective (the higher), there is no change at all: the Light remains infinite and omnipresent. I think this is what the Hasidic masters (especially the Baal Shem Tov, the Maggid of Mezritch, and later the Alter Rebbe) meant when they said: “Tzimtzum lo kipshuto” (the contraction is not literal). Yet this also affirms that Luria and the Hasidic reading are both true, simply depending on the level of consciousness one is describing.
Also, when you say, “It’s written, ‘I, the Lord, do not change,” (Malachi 3:6), this serves as the key proof-text in Scripture that the Divine Essence never undergoes any change, withdrawal, or alteration, even when creation perceives separation. Thus, change is only in perception, not in God; i.e., nothing changes in the Divine–only in the revelation experienced by creation.
Now, when you say that “Malchut of Eyn Sof restricted itself… so that it would never again receive pleasure unless it was in order to bestow,” I believe that you’re quoting Isaac Luria’s inner logic but reframing through Baal HaSulam’s psychological reading? Specifically, Malchut (the will to receive) is the vessel’s core essence. Before restriction, it received Light freely. After restriction, it chose not to receive unless it could do so altruistically — “in order to bestow.” In other words, the “restriction” wasn’t an act of God limiting Himself in essence, but rather an act of the created will aligning itself ethically with Divine intention.
So, one might say that the “contraction” is the beginning of conscious participation in divinity, perhaps even the birth of moral self-awareness in creation?
Finally, “The Light hasn’t changed; but a concealment was placed over it…” Is it correct to say that the Light (God’s essence) remains unaltered; only the perception is veiled. The metaphor of being in the king’s treasury but unaware reminds us that we live in the midst of Infinite Light but, because of concealment, we still feel separate (so frustrating! lol). But if only that concealment was lifted, we would instantly realize we have always been surrounded by Ein Sof.
So, if I may summarize, Ein Sof never ceases to be Infinite. The “contraction” is not a change in God but a veil over revelation. Both views (Lurianic and Hasidic) are correct depending on which side of the veil one stands.
And finally, the purpose of the veil is to create the possibility of ethical relationship — to “receive in order to bestow.”I truly appreciate all your insight!
Were the concealment suddenly lifted, we’d, for the first time, feel what we’ve spent our whole life trying to do: receive. And since we’re uncorrected, we’d receive in order to receive. Since it’s already known about us that that is what we will do, stringent conditions stand before us: we have to rise to spirituality. This means the Light doesn’t come down to us, as we are, as we wish it would. Rather, we have to rise, meaning to change our form of reception – our innermost property – and take on forms that are Equivalent with the Creator’s quality of bestowal. Already being like the spiritual world is the condition for revealing it. We can explain more and more, but really the Reforming Light needs to work on us so that it changes us and we reveal these things.
I’m not sure, though, what you mean by EynSof, the infinite…here there’s room for confusion.
Hi, Gianni.
I feel incredibly fortunate to have such a wonderful ten in my life, and I love each of them dearly. Lately, I’ve been feeling a bit overwhelmed by the sense that I might not be able to truly give them what they need. It’s painful to think that perhaps my efforts aren’t always reaching them the way I hope. I truly want to serve them better. How can I improve so that I can be more there for them?
Good morming. I have read Rav Dr Laitman’s
article about dealing with cases of child abuse by providing nurturing to the caregivers. My question is what should we do to protect the child from further abuse while nurturing the caregiver? Is there something else we can do through
kabbalah or is this something to be addressed.in the corporeal world? thank youAll you can do is teach them correct examples of connection. The laws of connection that we learn are the highest laws of reality. They have to be taught by example especially.
Hi Gianni,
After reading the article from Rabash 291. Man and His Role, I need help to understand the issue that arose in me.
The girl mimics her mother, and plays with a doll, but she is not yet ready to take pleasure from playing with a real baby. But, if she hadn’t had the example of the mother, she would not have thought that she could play with a doll and take pleasure from that. So, in order to get the desire for the “real thing” one must have an example first, a dummy, and then try to mimic it, i.e. must have a desire for the dummy first. I guess this is Lo Lishma.
But I have not seen/felt bestowal (so I don’t have an example from a mother with a real baby). I understand, with my mind, that what you do, Rav, all friends etc. is a bestowal, but I do not feel that different than any other act of corporeal kindness or correctness or even friendship. So, there is no way I can ever understand or feel what bestowal is, even “false” one, in order for me to get the desire to mimic that. Meaning, I do not understand the difference between Lo Lishma and corporeal kindness. How do I start differentiating those two things?
Thank you in advance!
Only by the direction of these acts. I need to see that the friends do what they do only because of the spiritual goal. That is, they are stepping on themselves, to give me a good example.
Whereas in corporeality, a person only does a nice thing if it gives them something, a good feeling inside, whatever. As soon as one is in the group, working toward spirituality, he loses such strength to work, and so it must be by overcoming.
So, I need to convince myself, and keep convincing, that the friends are doing this only for spiritual goal and nothing else?
But bestowal means I want to do all good to and for the friends, and I do not know what that good is, what will actually help them. Sometimes kindness is not the answer…
So, only the intention matters. Then what is the right intention if not a desire, but for the sake of other people? I need to (rather ask the Creator to) develop a specific desire called intention?
I develop the intention as I develop love for the friends. Love of friends is the button I have. It activates the Light, the Light imparts the intention. I can make whatever arguments I want, but if I don’t come to see my ten as the greatest in the generation, avatars of the Creator, perfect, then I will not reveal the Creator. That’s more important than whatever else.
Hi Gianni
the spiritual work, what’s the goal, how to get there is becoming more and more clear to us, I know we probably haven’t start the journey yet, but at least on intellectual level, things are getting more and more clear. As we can’t and shouldn’t apply the things we are learning in YG blindly in corporeal life, and we deal with all sorts of hardship in corporeal life, other than be able to understand it’s purpose and who is behind everything better, we nevertheless need to deal with it. I heard many times that we shouldn’t mix the two and in corporeal life we shall continue to live like an average normal person. My question is, as my inner quality starting to change, how can I continue to live like my old self? it’s like I put some frozen water under the sun, as it’s starting to melt a little, I put it back to the freezer again, corporeal is like a reverse action. it seems like spiritual work is more structured, more clear logic, like science, if you do A, you will get B, if you repeat enough times, you will get Z. but corporeal life is like tangled wires. it feels like both are real work, both are needed, but there is no remedy for corporeal life.
I guess I am not sure exactly what answers I am looking for , other than to share this “frustration” and “confusion”.
thanks
Helen
For a minute, I thought you were saying ‘in corporeal life you do A, you get B’ and so on. But you were referring to spiritual life. That’s only in the theory of spiritual life. The axiom is becoming clear to you. But in reality, corporeal life has clear cause and consequence, while in spiritual life, we have to work Above Reason. The laws of corporeal life are much more revealed. And its laws are the Creator’s laws. So, we need to closely obey the laws apparent in this world – and that will be the most spiritual thing we can do; and obey the spiritual laws toward the group. We don’t bring the ways of one into the other. But there’s a point where they become one, precisely by working toward each one in these opposite ways.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.