- This topic has 641 replies, 265 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by
.
- Replies
Hi,
I don’t think so, Ethics of the fathers is Pirkei Avot. Where did you see the word “afer” used? Please post a link so that I can comment within that context.
Albert @ KabU
I’m listening to the audio of Attaining Worlds Beyond. The line is toward the beginning of chapter 2, “From all the ‘Afer’ said it should become clear, that the only element lacking in our world is the perception of the Creator.” I’ve listened to the book many times and not found a reference to who that is.
I stand to be corrected, if I am out of context, I have question Rav, are Catholic priests kabbalists right?
Hi Ron,
A Kabbalist is someone that has corrected his egoistic desire into the desire to bestow (at least to some extent). As a result of this correction, a Kabbalist reveals the Creator, the general force of love and bestowal, while they are alive in this world.
Whoever performs such a correction can be called a Kabbalist. Since this correction is internal, it makes no difference if this person is a priest, male, female, elderly, young, religious or secular, etc. None of these external factors have any influence over our spiritual correction, nor are they indicators of a person being corrected or not.
Albert @ KabU
1) From the book “Attaining The Worlds Beyond” page 113:
…. Creator originally designed human beings with the ability to engage in simple acts, however we have since complicated the original design.”
How and why did we complicate this original design? And what or who made us do it?
2) What does it mean to be equal to the Creator?
when our ego is replaced by altruism, and merging with the light, we are told that we become “equal to the Creator”
Does this then mean that one can create (e.g stars, moon etc) like the Creator?
Hi Ruth,
1. On that same page, he explains that a simple act is when the action and intention match (for example receiving something for the sake of receiving), while a complex act is when the action and intention don’t match (for example giving something for the sake of receiving).
The Creator only gives and we only receive. This is how we were created. But if we remained that way, we would remain like little animals and never grow and develop to become similar to Him. For this reason, this was necessarily “complicated”.
To understand this, let’s take an example of us feeding a goldfish. You (the giver) feed it and it (the receiver) eats the food and that’s the end of that. The goldfish will always remain a goldfish and will never build a desire to become like you. We, or more correctly the desire to receive that the Creator created, on the other hand felt the Creator as the giver and that evoked in us a desire to also be like Him. This thereby sets off the entire system of worlds by which we can gradually do exactly that.
This will all make more sense in the upcoming lesson on the four phases of direct light, where we’ll learn about the initial thought of creation and the process of development that the desire to receive undergoes.
2. Equal to the Creator means to bestow like Him. But since we are the pure desire to receive pleasure, we have nothing that we can give. The next best thing, and the only thing we really can do, is to receive in order to bestow. Even though the action is reception, the intention is bestowal, so the action itself is also considered bestowal.
Check out the Guest and Host Analogy in Chapter 3 of Attaining the Worlds Beyond for more details:
http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/4180?/eng/content/view/full/4180&main
Albert @ KabU
From the book, “Attaining the worlds beyond” page 100:
“Light-that which emanates from the Creator and is perceived by us as immense pleasure. Comprehending the pleasure or perceiving the Creator (which is, actually, one and the same, for it is not Him we perceive but the Light reaching us) is the purpose of creation.”.
I just want to clarify, is Light in Kabbalah the delight that we perceive from strengthening our connection with the creator ?
When we experience “sufferings” in this world, would that also be considered Light if what we learn from our suffering ultimately brings us closer to the creator and advance us in spirituality ?
Hi Hooman,
Yes, you can say that light is the pleasure from connecting with Him.
The light is the force that is opposite the desire. All that was created was the desire to receive pleasure. The force that created this desire and fulfills it is the light. So the light is the Creator, the pure quality of bestowal. We can also say that light = pleasure, since this is what fulfills that desire. Check out this blog post from Rav Laitman for more details:
http://laitman.com/2014/12/what-is-the-light/
As for suffering, we can say that it’s from the imbalance between the desire and the light. Check out this blog post from Rav Laitman for more details:
https://laitman.com/2008/12/the-path-of-light-versus-the-path-of-suffering/
Albert @ KabU
Hi Amani,
Yes, that’s normal. The more light we extract from the studies, the more we begin to reveal such things. It’s just like in corporeality, we don’t really know that we’re sitting in a dirty room until we turn on the light.
Furthermore, we learned in the lesson on the perception of reality that the whole external world is nothing more than a reflection of my own egoistic state. In other words, the only reason I see others as being egoistic is because I’m still egoistic. And when I correct myself, I’ll look at the world and it too will appear corrected. It’s like I have these dirty glasses through which I see the whole world as being dirty. The moment I clean my own glasses (correct myself) then I’ll look at the same world, but now it’s clean and perfect.
Check out this blog post from Rav Laitman for more details: https://laitman.com/2014/04/in-neutral-gear/
Albert @ KabU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.