[Logynn]

In the live lesson that just finished they were discussing the article about selling the beams of your house. That’s one of my favorite articles.

It seems to imply that it’s more valuable to the Creator the effort you put into the fractured relationships rather than the ones that feel genuine.

I am interpreting that since the beams that you are selling (passing across the screen/floor/shoes to not use those egoistic desires?) are the ones that criticize the friends, that seems to mean that the Creator is “paying” for the work on the bad connections. It doesn’t say anything about the value of the good beams.

This reminds me of a question I have about the preparation for the Congress: Is it better to focus your prayers on the desires to connect that are genuine, like having a deficiency to connect with the friends that you really feel a longing for, in order to raise a real prayer? Or is it better to focus your prayers on the desires to overcome the shattering or the “gap” where you can see that you cannot desire to connect with that friend because you don’t know them well or any other reason?

Does that make sense? Is it more valuable to raise a genuine prayer, or to ask for the deficiency?

[Logynn]

This is on page 170 of Zohar for All in English:

“174) We should know that the NRN of the righteous permanently clothe only the Partzufim BYA below the Parsa: Nefesh clothes the ten Sefirot of Assiya; Ruach—the ten Sefirot of Yetzira; and Neshama—the ten Sefirot of Beria. It turns out that although they receive from ZON of Atzilut, it still reaches them only through the Partzufim BYA, which clothe over them. Thus, the NRN of the righteous, too, rise along with the ascents of the three worlds BYA. It turns out that the worlds BYA, too, grow only according to the measure of reception of abundance by the NRN of the righteous according to the MAN sorted by them.”

I am curious if this is related to the “pipeline” that Rav described so much in the “Faith Above Reason” lesson series? It looks here like it’s talking about that sorting of the deficiencies of the world and translating them into prayers with the proper intention that the Creator can fulfill, so that we can pass the light to the world who cannot pray effectively for themselves.

[Logynn]

all this about the 2 year old is so helpful. Thank you.

[Logynn]

Last night I was reading the Zohar before bed and this one item (92) stood out to me so much that I woke up with a load of questions:

“92) It has already been explained that due to the ascent of the bottom Hey to Nikvey Eynaim, which occurred in the second restriction, when the Katnut of the ten Sefirot of Nekudim emerged, each degree divided into two halves: Galgalta and Eynaim remained in the degree, for which they are called anterior vessels, and Ozen, Hotem, Peh, which fell from the degree to the one below it, are therefore called posterior vessels, as it is written in Item 76. Thus, each degree is now twofold, made of internality and externality, since the posterior vessels of the upper degree fell to the internality of its own anterior vessels. The fallen AHP of Keter of Nekudim are clothed inside Galgalta and Eynaim of AVI, and the fallen AHP of AVI are clothed inside Galgalta and Eynaim of ZAT of Nekudim.”
– (from page 142 in Zohar for All Volume 1 in English.)

Ok, first question is about anterior/posterior and internality/externality:
I’m trying to understand the relationship between anterior/posterior and internality/externality in this passage.

My current understanding is that anterior/posterior describes orientation to the Light (what can face it vs. what must turn away), while internality/externality describes participation within a degree (what is active vs. sidelined)… what has meaning and what doesn’t (yet.)

Is it correct to say that posterior (unusable) vessels of an upper degree can become the internality (meaning/focus) of a lower degree… not spatially, but functionally … when they fall and are clothed by the lower’s anterior vessels? Why would that be? That a desire unusable at a higher degree could somehow be worked with by a less advanced degree? Because it’s coarser?

Second question “posterior falling into internality”:
In the sentence “the posterior vessels of the upper degree fell to the internality of its own anterior vessels,”

is the correct interpretation that the posterior of the upper becomes internal to the lower degree’s functioning, rather than the upper folding into itself?

I’m asking because spatial interpretations seem to fail here, and I’m trying to understand this relationally rather than geometrically.

Third question is about who “does” the correction:
In this passage, the actions seem to be described from the perspective of the upper degree reclaiming its AHP and lifting the lower with it. But I thought that the lower always initiates and that’s why it seems like we’re always talking from the perspective of the lower one.

Is it accurate to say that while the lower initiates correction by adhesion and raising MAN, the execution always occurs from above, and that this is why the Zohar narrates it from the upper’s side?

Last question (this might not relate. I’m comparing it to something I experienced.)
Experientially, this mechanism feels similar to a state where the lower does not receive Light directly, but positions itself behind another (friend/group), allowing bestowal to pass through alignment rather than possession.

Is it valid to understand this as the lived experience of ZAT adhering to the posterior of the upper during Katnut, prior to Gadlut? Basically, it is adhering to the desire of its “friend” which is the experience of who the “upper” is here? (in my experience it also seemed like the friend is the screen, because the friend receives and light instead.) Is this why connection is a necessary prerequisite condition for advancement?

I hope that all makes sense. That one sentence really threw me.

[Logynn]

It seems like since I started YG group everything in my world is sort of like something Rabash or Baal HaSulam described. Is our reality composed of kind of jumbled echoes of all those states and structures?

How do people in spiritually endure the real things? Is it that they are stronger because the Creator is more revealed? Or maybe from the memory of impressions of the Creator?

[Logynn]

I have a question about the definition of klipot and what the ten is in relation to that. I reread “What is the Foundation on which Kedusha is Built?” often because it makes everything make sense, and seems custom written just for me. But there is one thing in there that I only get more confused about.

The article defines (multiple times) two kinds of revelations of evil/the will to receive:

1- a gentle revelation by the Creator (at night, in doubt) which aides the person in fuel for the work and prayers for correction.

2 – “the herdsman of Gerar,” a klipot which seems to reveal to you that you are not capable of the work and should return to corporeality instead. It is demotivating for a relatively long time afterward (compared to the normal length of cycles of feelings in inner work.)

I experience that first one so often, and it’s very unpleasant, but it is also very motivating. You kind of want it, even when it’s awful.

The second one I rarely encounter, but when I do it is exclusively from my ten. This makes me wonder if I have the wrong definition of shells, or the wrong definition of the ten. It seems like the general description of the ten in our Young Group curriculum is this space where nothing is a shell. Everything that every member of the ten says is the Creator speaking and we should consider it as such. That seems to mean that nothing is a shell in there and we should treat it as a revealed message from the Creator.

But the description of the herdsman of Gerar klipot in this article is very clearly describing a dynamic I only see in my ten.

What is the correct way to relate to this?

[Author]

Replies