- This topic has 1,473 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 5 minutes ago by
.
- Replies
Hi,
I have a basic question. We refer to the Torah so much and we reference the Torah in everything yet we are never encouraged or instructed to read it. Why is this ?And a follow up question , if the Zohar is from the spiritual realm , isn’t the Torah from an even higher realm as it was handed to us by the Creator Himself? So shouldn’t we be reading the Torah itself too?
As Baal HaSulam writes in The Essence of the Wisdom of Kabbalah the Torah can be written in 4 languages, one of which is the language of Kabbalah. Each is writing about the same Upper World. However, when a person reads the Torah directly, especially without the commentary of Baal HaSulam and Rabash, they aren’t able to only think that this is about spirituality. He quickly starts imagining some historical matters, etc. The Zohar is a bit closer to us, however it’s still a must to read it only with the Ladder commentary of Baal HaSulam. He sort of “spoils” it for us, disallowing us to get lost in fantasies, because he intersperses the translation of what is written in the language of legends, laws, and so on – with the language of Kabbalah. This way, one knows for certain that he doesn’t know what the text is talking about – it’s clearly not from the reality I’m familiar with. This forces me to long for the Upper Light to change me, help me, etc. And this longing is actually the main thing. It’s the only thing I can really do that is near to spirituality.
I understood that some of our instructors ( e.g. Gil Shir ) are physicists. Question: in science, the concept of entropy speaks about total disorder in the end. Kabbalist Rav Laitman speaks of entropy as a state were everything is balancing out, coming to a final rest. The light is completely at rest, in beginning and end, so is entropy comparable with Gmar Tikkun, the final correction? Second law of thermodynamics states that energy is conserved, nothing is waisted, so the beginning is the end, is this science meets kabbalah? I love to hear/see Gil about this topic in for instance, a Kabbalah explained simply lesson. Or was there already such a topic on KaBu?
If so, I am much interested to hear more. Thanks in advance.
There’s an episode on physics but we don’t talk about entropy. We can boil it down simply and say that everything we see is a result of the Shattering of the soul of Adam HaRishon. After that, you just have offshoots of this action, which are all the laws of physics. If you want to relate it to the idea of entropy, we can say that what happens to this broken soul is that it’s brokenness gets increasingly revealed. That’s why you have such laws. Detail it as much as you want, but that’s all that’s happening. And there’s nothing to do in the universe besides connect the hearts of people, because all the other inanimate, vegetative, animate parts of reality appear in brokenness because of the brokenness of the connection between the hearts of people. In that shattering, all the distances within the universe are depicted. It’s true, that because this depends on free choice on the part of people, and no other action depends on their free choice, the laws of physics can’t take this free choice into account, nor can they account for the help of the Upper Force that comes in when people exercise this free choice, and therefore it looks like the inevitable state of the system over time is disarray. That’s only because the system is designed to show us more and more our broken state, till we can’t ignore it and can’t tolerate it, and will demand a correction.
Hello
From TES, second chapter, Part 2, page 96-97. The light of Néfesh is the light of the circular vessels. Can we consider Néfesh as Part of the surrounding light?
Thank you
Adelina
It’s best to take Baal HaSulam’s definitions as-is. Here’s how he defines Surrounding Light:
Ohr Makif: Any Light that is repelled from reception in the Sof of the Partzuf, due to the weakness of the Masach. It surrounds the Partsuf and pressures the Masach in order to be clothed within it in the future.
In this past Young Group class, the Creator was described as the Force of Nature. To me, the term “Force” suggests an impersonal energy. Can a person ever develop a personal relationship with the Creator? Does the Creator know us and love us on a personal level?
Me, by myself, He feels toward that “me” the way I feel toward, say, a single cell within my precious baby son. The cell isn’t important, but the collection is more important than anything in the world. The cell itself, if it feels itself alone, is a cancer cell; while the healthy cell doesn’t feel himself alone, but part of the whole. In the whole, it feels it’s life and existence. We’re like cancer cells and thus we don’t enjoy our existence, nor does the Creator. And that “I” isn’t the true me either, nor does it have any eternity to it. The true me is in my incorporation in the whole reality. That’s where I truly express what’s unique in the root of my soul, and where I discover the Creator’s love for “me”.
When students offer up complaints [about their tens] as questions, I don’t understand pedagogically why the scenarios are entertained as if “real” and given so much attention. Shouldn’t our time together be focussed on connection activities and changing our perception of reality so that we stop imagining flaws in that which has been designed perfectly to draw us closer to the Creator? Aren’t there more experiential exercises that could help us shift into living inside the new realities between us instead of so much C &A (Complain and Answer). And it is not lost on me that this is a complaint offered up as a question, so I guess pedagogically maybe it is all perfect already?
Hi friends! I have a question, in the book ‘The Path of Kabbalah’ (p. 304-305 section Proper Study, Thoughts, question “How do our thoughts affect our environment?”), Rav Michael Laitman mention: “And so it is with everything in our world: if we regard everything through corrected desires, we will be able to see the spiritual objects around us reflected in corporeal objects of this world.”
Could you give examples to distinguish and know in what kind of perception of the spiritual worlds we find ourselves?
Thank You!
We don’t find ourselves in the spiritual world but in the corporeal world. We see the branches of what’s in the spiritual world. The roots are of a different quality for which you have no examples in your life experiences and not even in your wildest imaginations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.