Forum Replies Created
- Replies
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?
Regarding the recording of Rabash yesterday:
When the refinement of the screen causes a feeling of deficiency because the light is ejected, and the light exits through the peh. Is that because the calculation (screen) was a declaration of intent towards the light, not to receive it, because reasons. And that’s why it comes out through the mouth?
You have the words to say what I meant to ask. Thank you so much.
Is the force of aviut directly related to judgement?
Does “coarse light” refer to future states we can see we want, but don’t have a corrected vessel to receive it yet? The future state doesn’t look right to us, because we’re still perceiving it through a lens of reception instead of bestowal, so the light seems “coarse”?
In the morning lesson they read ” The Striking of Thoughts upon Man” by Rabash. But nobody asked if the “striking” here is the same as a “striking” on a spiritual partzuf, or why the text seems to be framed in a pre-attainment cognitive paradigm.
This text seemed to imply that the “striking” is to trouble the lower one. And the way it’s describing it is as if the same striking happens on someone who doesn’t have spiritual perception or a real screen yet. It certainly describes states that anyone can relate to: having troubling thoughts that require scrutiny, the Creator sending an awareness of your own egoism in a situation, making a calculation not to act on an egoistic impulse for the sake of the Creator. These are thoughts that anyone beginning the study will have all the time.
“…We can interpret that striking is the thoughts that strike a person, trouble him and tire him, and he has thoughts this way and that way. And all this is because he has a Masach…”
(But this also happens in a person without a Masach.)“…and thoughts begin to run about within him. This is called ‘striking with his views.’…” (Is this another kind of striking? An internal one?)
“…This means that although he does not really feel the importance of the upper one, the scrutiny is through a Masach, called ‘an attempt,’ regarded as ‘concealment.’ But when he overcomes the Masach and sustains it, meaning he does not cancel the Masach,…”
Does this mean that before one gets a permanent Masach and perception of the spiritual world, that they are already making the calculations and the “attempt,”??
Does it mean that even before having a screen and perceiving the spiritual world you could achieve (to some measure) the following result described in Rabash’s note?
“…this causes joy above, and then the upper one also gives him joy. That is, to the extent that he received the importance of the upper one above reason, that same measure of greatness of the upper one extends to him within reason, not less and not more.”
Is the pleasure of devotion the reward described there, which is dispensed in the same measure as the amount of devotion you mustered in response to the striking?
