- This topic has 1,547 replies, 119 voices, and was last updated 56 minutes ago by
.
- Replies
Dear Instructor,
FAO Seth B
Re. Oct 11, 2022 – Pticha- Lesson 13 | A Sage Speaks
When explaining the process and mechanism of the GE. & AHP. and how the GE. overlaps the AHP. up and/ or down impelled upward by ‘flirting from above’. I perceive this of the relationship is in all directions and is limitless.
1) Does a pinecone from a pine tree, as many other physical natural things, show this similar pattern too. I mean, the replication of a pattern over and over with overlap and symmetry? This is just a silly thought but seemingly a fundament of nature.
2) The relationship between the GE. & AHP. allows movement by equalizing up or down. Is this like the white keys as major chords and black keys like minor keys on a piano. I mean, not only in appearance but that the audible note of the sharp notes and flat notes which allow for the audible increase and decrease in tone across the scale? Ditto above.
3) Sorry to be geeky here, about halfway through Sandra asked you ‘how do we know if we attain it [spirituality]’. Your reply at 53m49s you are not audible you said ‘you’ll know when you attain it [spirituality it is called a [word missing]. What is the word you used to describe this attaining of spirituality.
4) Download button is missing from this and other classes too.
5) Is the beating of the light, which is rejected and which hits the Tabour. Is this felt by me as pain and disappointment in life which drives me forward too. And conversely is the accepted Hoxer light -me getting on with things
This was a hard class item 40 is tough to follow and the wording/ terms in the big green student book is different to that which you use.
Thanks. Lyndon S.
Lyndon,
Jim’s answer is the best.3) I said, “ta’asig b’yadech”. It means to attain in your hand. It means attainment is as if you are holding it in your hand. It is not fantasy, it is not imagination. If you are drinking coffee you know you are drinking coffee. Same thing.
4) I’ll tell Alan Barba who deals with the download button 🙂
5) Here is a copy paste of some of my notes from that class. Much of this is Rav’s words mixed with my development and explanation for the clas, it’s all mixed together, but you’ll get the point.If the lower part is capable of realizing that the Upper One is concealing Himself and if the lower asks for help to correct his egoism, (called raising a prayer) then the Upper reveals Himself (lifts His AHP)So we should remember that the first stage of perceiving the spiritual is the feeling of spiritual deprivation…
When we feel a lack of desire for spirituality, it means that the Upper Partzuf descended, degraded its properties, entered us, equalized with us, hence man feels spiritually empty.
It is precisely in this state of not being drawn to the spiritual that a person should tell himself that it only seems to him this way, but in truth, by faith above reason, he desires and acts for the sake of nearing the spiritual. In other words, if, in the state when the Upper One “falls” in his eyes, if one can nonetheless aspire to spirituality, he thereby connects himself to the AHP of the Upper One.
The most important thing in our state is to come to feel the AHP of the Upper Degree, located at the very center of our heart, and to become equal with it in our properties so as to afterwards rise together with it.
All of our thoughts about the Creator and about spirituality constitute our contact with the AHP of the Upper One.
Therefore, as soon as one can establish contact with AHP of the Upper One (even if it appears to him absolutely unattractive, precisely because it lowers its properties to man’s level), this AHP of the Upper One immediately elevates man to its GE. Thus, man ascends to a Higher Degree.
There are stories that were told about this, that the mission of the righteous one in our world was to descend to the most corrupt people. The Upper degree corrupts its properties to equalize with the lower degree. Then when he completely unites with them and they trust him, (the union of AHP of the upper with the GE of the lower), he gradually begins to correct them – though his example he passes his thoughts to them. And since there is no distinction between the desires of AHP of the Upper One and GE of the lower one, into which AHP of the Upper One fell, they both rise together. This way, the Upper One elevates, i.e., improves, corrects a certain part of the lower one’s properties (GE), and elevates them to its true level.
Good luck good friend!
SethDear KabU,
Re. ta’asig b’yadech
Thanks so much for your answers and help, appreciated!
Can you let me know are there any links you can share re ‘ta’asig b’yadech’? I have looked and looked and there’s nothing on it?
I just want to read what has been put about this so I can perceive this state. Thanks so much.
Lyndon S.
Hello Lyndon. I could not find any links to this term. Maybe if it were in Hebrew. That said, my understanding is that the phase doesn’t describe a state. I think it refers to moving from one state to the next – attainment. For example: say I never have eaten an apple. I research all I can about the taste of an apple, but I still don’t really know what an apple tastes like. Then one day I bite into an apple. Now I have attained what an apple tastes like. I moved from the state of not knowing the taste, to the state of knowing the taste.
Hello Lyndon. I will pass your post to Seth.
I would mention that trying to use things in corporeality as examples of what goes on in the spiritual is problematic at best. Take, for instance, the concept of “bestowal”. Our best corporeal example of this is a mother’s love for her child. And yet, ultimately, this example is just the opposite of what is meant by bestowal as the kabbalists use the term. As for repeating patterns, there is just one pattern that repeats and makes our whole reality both vertically (towards the Creator) and horizontally (all the worlds). That pattern we call the four phases of direct light. I’ve heard Rav mention it’s kind of like fractals and kind of like holograms. Again, both of these examples can be misleading. The problem is that spirituality is above reason and all our examples are within reason.
Dear Instructor,
FAO Seth,
Re : Sep 27, 2022 – Pticha- Lesson 12 | A Sage Speaks
You said about half-way through that the outer light and inner light always add up to 100%. The example you were giving was with a notional 20% accepted into the vessel and the rest 80% rejected. I get that your example is just to get the idea across of the ‘lights’.
My question is. If you have a limitless light / light without end, the exact instance that a tiniest amount of that infinitude of light [no matter how small] enters into the vessel then the infinitesimal light that enters does so without end in the vessel too. You can’t subtract from infinity as much as you cannot add to it. So, although I get the idea to some extent, I can’t get out of this paradox.
Second question, when Rob read Item.39, ‘by the clash of surrounding light and the inner light . . . because the clash of surrounding light refined the ending screen. . . . ‘ is the ‘clashing’ here referred to as detected by me as ‘Malchut-Lyndon’ as the beauty in nature the memory of the love from the Creator through the heavy gloom under the material sky that I can have some appreciation of? Just a thought.
Wow, Rob has a great reading voice! what a treasure! Thanks Lyndon S
You’re half right. In the Light, you have a taste of all the Light. However, the Light is always according to the Vessel. And so, you don’t taste all that is possible – everything is possible by the Light – but only what you have a Vessel for. By the same token, Eyn Sof doesn’t mean “infinite” – that’s just a math concept, we don’t really know what it is – Eyn Sof means that the Vessel is filled completely, without limit. In the Light there could be much more, but according to the Vessel it is unlimited because it is filled to the brim. It thus doesn’t feel any limit.
On ” the path of thruth”, (Rabash article 13.) aiming to become like the Creator, we learn that we have to sort out our internal and external desires. In our mutual connection, what would our common screen look like?
Dear KabU Grad Environment,
Re. Sep 22, 2022 – Rosh HaShana
I posted this question FAO Mike Kellogg on the 30-Sept-22 but since been told Mike doesn’t really reply to questions so can you help with a reply? Thanks Lyndon >
The lesson this week focused on the quality of ‘love’ being something completely outside the will to receive and presently beyond us.
I have been thinking a lot about what exactly the term ‘Love thy friend as thy self’ means and have the following questions:
1) what does the term ‘friend’ actually mean? is this the exclusion of all those who you do not term as being a friend.
2) does the term ‘friend’ just mean the rest of humanity regardless of their relationship to you whether the individual is indeed a friend or enemy, foe, somebody you distrust/ dislike etc regardless
3) if the term friend means the rest of humanity/ all people would it be better to say “love all beings else as thy self”?
4) If we take it that the term friend means everybody in the world I don’t know whether I would ever be able to come to terms with that. I mean, with such dreadful things in the world done at the hands of man it would be very difficult for me to love such people let alone those who are considered as being friends.
thank you ever so much. Lyndon.
1) what does the term ‘friend’ actually mean? is this the exclusion of all those who you do not term as being a friend.
The Kabbalists explain, a friend means a friend on the same spiritual path as you. It’s like Mendeleev’s table – you can’t combine whatever you want there, some are not amenable to the combination. People too are different qualities and weights (Aviut). You can unite with those who “float to the surface”, to the wisdom of Kabbalah. They’re not totally weighed down by the Will to Receive of this world, but at least somewhat incline to ascend upward to the quality of the Creator. That’s why they “happen” to find Kabbalah and that’s why I can call them friends.
2) does the term ‘friend’ just mean the rest of humanity regardless of their relationship to you whether the individual is indeed a friend or enemy, foe, somebody you distrust/ dislike etc regardless
See above
3) if the term friend means the rest of humanity/ all people would it be better to say “love all beings else as thy self”?
No, I can’t love all beings yet. We have nothing in common. There’s an order to the correction like there’s an order to the formation of organs in the womb. First, there is the Rosh, which is why Israel is Li-Rosh (“I have a head”). Those who are inclined to the spiritual goal are this avant-garde that I can connect with. Through this order, eventually, all of humanity gets included.
4) If we take it that the term friend means everybody in the world I don’t know whether I would ever be able to come to terms with that. I mean, with such dreadful things in the world done at the hands of man it would be very difficult for me to love such people let alone those who are considered as being friends.
According to the above, you’re correct. But later, it will all be covered with love, and all pain will be inverted, to pleasure. As it is written, “Love covers all crimes.”
I am getting more and more curious about the point of free choice, the middle third of Tifferet. Quote from Rav in one of his blogpost:
” What is my independence and where can I find it?
I have to find out what my dependence is, who or what do I depend on, and what depends or does not depend on me. It’s possible that I am independent or not, and I have to or don’t have to agree or disagree with it. After making all the analyses of my state, I discover that I am outside of the Creator.
This is possible because the Creator is expressed as the influence of two forces upon me: positive and negative, right and left. That is why there is a state between us where they neutralize each other like the field between two magnets.
I am in the neutral zone. The right line is the force of bestowal, while the left line is the force of reception, and I am between them. I am influenced by two forces, yet at the same time I am not influenced by anything. Their neutralization is inside of me. That is to say, on one hand the Creator exists and these two forces influence me, but they influence me in such a way that I do not feel their influence on me because they neutralize each other inside of me.
So on one hand, “There is none else besides Him,” but on the other hand, “If I don’t do it for myself, who will do it for me?” This neutral state is called the middle part of Sefira Tifferet. If I find this state, then it is the basic point from which I personally determine what I prefer: the right, bestowing, or the left, receiving, direction for my development.
(…) This is why a special point of the Creator wakes up in us. We develop it in opposition to our egoistic nature. “A point of desire” against “a point of Light,” they both emerge as a result of the breaking. By correcting a connection between them, we independently achieve similarity to the Creator. Without this “tool,” we wouldn’t be born and become equal to the Creator.”
In an earlier question abou this topic Gianni answered, that we do not have the tools yet, to exert free choice. Above, the tool(s) again is mentioned (without which we wouldn’t be born).
So, my simple question is: what specifically is this tool and what craftmanship is needed to use that tool?
P.s. And can you clarify about the Klipat Noga, as it refers to this question? Thanks in advance.
The tool to deal with this is the spiritual Screen. That means that I can be above all the forces. And I see that the forces of bestowal and reception are equal and I’m the deciding factor between them.
Since I live inside my own desires I only have one force – reception. We’re in the business of creating the other place from which to decide – from within the group. The more I invest there, the more there’s a field outside me that I belong to. We just haven’t made enough investment there to have a feeling of it. It’s a concept. But not a place that has real existence.
Hi Gil, Zohar and Gianni, A friend in our Ten had a unique way of scrutinizing a Rabash article in our last meeting. She mentioned that it was a lesson watched in WPOL with Marcos sometime in June. I need your help in finding this record class. Its title was something like, Scrutinizing for Connection with subtitles, advice, principles, definitions, process or questions. It was so interesting our Ten wanted to watch the original lesson.
Also Zohar mentioned if we had any topic ideas to let him know. So I would love to know more about scrutinizing an article in order to ask Rav a proper question. Maybe a workshop on how to ask questions appropriately would be helpful in our future. Thank you, thank you, thank you for all that you do to help us on our journey. Much Love my Friends, Joanne YG-W6
Best to keep Rabash as-is and talk about how to implement what he says in our ten, without any additions. The whole attainment of the Upper World is there in the Rabash articles, in realizing them at the simplest level. If we’ll approach his advice as babies do, that will be the most advanced approach possible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.