[Kyro]

Transitioning from a self-centered perception of reality to one grounded in altruism entails perceiving the needs of another creature as your own and thus treating the other as you would treat yourself.

[Kyro]

At a stage where one does not yet feel emotional connection or belonging, is passive presence (listening without active engagement) considered valid preparation before entering group work?

[Kyro]

How do you distinguish preparation of the vessel from spiritual correction, and how should one relate to non-Kabbalistic inner work before entering a practical group?

[Kyro]

What do I hope to get out of this course I’m now starting? I don’t know. Eventually I want to “wake up” from this dream, and all arrows point towards me taking this course. Let’s do this.

[Kyro]

Through this process, I learned to observe that lack without rejecting it, and to ask how I can remain truthful, dignified, and conscious in my desire to know the truth, even while recognizing that my perception is still limited and developing.

As for my fellow students, I don’t feel that I can meaningfully wish outcomes or achievements on anyone, since each person’s work is their own. What I can choose is my attitude — and from that place, I wish everyone strength and perseverance in continuing their process. Go on, everyone — I know you can do it. 😉

— Kyro

[Kyro]

Hi,

so I didn’t know where to post these questions, but since these questions arose in week 5 I thought I post them here.

1. What does “death” mean in Kabbalah, exactly?

When we say “death is not real” or “death is only in the corporeal picture,” what is the exact spiritual definition of death? And how should a student relate to physical death without turning it into either mysticism or denial of corporeal reality?

 

2) What does “incarnation / gilgul” refer to: bodies, states, or both?

When we speak about gilgulim (reincarnations), do we mean:

(a) a literal sequence of human lives,
(b) spiritual “incarnations” as changes of states/levels in the desire and intention,
or (c) both, but in a root/branch relationship?

If both: what is the correct way to understand the connection between spiritual state-transitions and biological birth/death?

 

3) What are Reshimot “remaining in the system” — what does that mean operationally?
So it’s said that when a person dies, Reshimot remain in the system and correction continues later.

What does “remain in the system” mean in technical terms?

Are Reshimot stored in the general soul / spiritual network, and later awaken in another person’s desire?

What does it not mean (e.g., not “memories travel,” not “personality transfers”)?

Basically: what is the clearest, least-misleading way to imagine “Reshimot persist” without turning it into fantasy metaphysics?

 

4) What exactly persists from “my work” if individuality doesn’t continue?
Kabbalah says that nothing personal continues (no memory/identity), but corrected qualities remain in the general soul.

What exactly counts as a “corrected quality” that remains?
How does that contribution integrate into the collective kli?
Is it correct to say: “the system becomes more corrected in that portion, and later awakenings build on it,” even though there’s no personal continuity?

 

5) Numbers and scope: how do 613/620, 125 degrees, and “many people” fit together?

I get confused combining the “numbers language” with the fact there are billions of people and many generations.

When we say 613/620 corrections, is that structure describing the general kli (a universal map), or does it apply “per person”?
How do the 125 degrees relate to those corrections?
How should we understand “some awaken earlier, some later,” without imagining “8 billion × 620” as if each body has a totally separate checklist?
I’m basically asking: what is the correct model for the relationship between general structure (613/620, 125 degrees) and many human lives/awakenings inside one system?

6) How does life and interaction look in a corrected system where individuality is transparent rather than possessive?

In Kabbalah we say that the final corrected state (Gmar Tikkun) is not about individual souls, identities, or narratives, but about the correction of the general soul (Adam HaRishon), where personal ownership, “my story,” and egoic selfhood dissolve, while function, relation, awareness, and participation remain.

I understand that the correction is not about the physical form (human bodies specifically), but about desire and intention—so theoretically, the form expressing the general soul could be any sentient vessel. What matters is not who exists, but how the connection operates.

So my question specifically is…

How do conflict, disagreement, or difference function when there is no egoic drama or personal ownership?
How does choice still exist if there is no “my interest” versus “your interest,” but only bestowal?
What replaces narrative identity (“this is mine,” “this is who I am”) while still allowing differentiation and function?
How do beings relate to one another when connection itself is the pleasure and not the fulfillment of a personal lack?
In other words, how does a corrected collective actually operate—not as an abstract ideal, but as a living system—once the illusion of separate selves is gone but awareness and relation remain?

 

 

 

 

 

[Author]

Replies