Forum Replies Created
- Replies
Hi Gianni, which relevance should we give to all the corporeality,… with all that challenges going on there, people we meet, bigger topcis of love and loss,… things that might be path of developing „naturally“, even if it is called the path of suffering? I know, here we work on our spiritual path, we try to hasten time,… but what do we do with the rest? It feels impossible to take that part as a robot… we still have to relate, feel,…. And how shall we relate to the fact, that also in corporeality, there is development, just much slower? How shall we relate to that part where we live our „lives as beasts“… ?
Hi Gianni… there is another question I don’t get out of my mind… as we work in our tens, we work towards unity and oneness, trying to grow our connection , trying to grow towards bestowal…and the moments when this is tangible, can be so precious, as much as the moments of disconnection can be so challenging. Now… what happens if in a ten someone steps out? I mean… not moving on like to another ten… just more in a disruptive way. What happens to the ten as a spiritual body? Is it like a lack or a loss? like something missing? Or is it that everything that has been connected before, stays on that kevel-because no state gets lost- and tge rest of the ten takes the next steps in the new formation? And what should be the right attitude in such a situation… with respect to the “body” of the ten, not necessarily the individuals?
Hi Gianni,
We were reading preface of the wisdom of Kabbalah… right in Art 1 and 2 it talks about existence out of absence … what does that mean?
What I didn’t get, is that existence out of absence is when the development of something new starts. I understand that the will to receive is opposite the creator… but at the same time only the process of filling the will to receive with light creates something “new”… that didn’t exist before…? So when is actually something “new” born into existence? I am a bit confused there…
Hi Gianni, I am grateful for this dialogue , … now, I understand that there are similarities and differences in the work of men and women, and there is the male and female part in each of us. Now, how are women supposed to work, what in this wisdom is supposedly their part to fulfill? I am ok to dedicate my life to this… but I am wondering what’s the point of trying to work like the men, if at the same time this is considered to not even work at all? I don’t have a gender issue. And I don’t like if it pops up in the work as such…and sometimes it does… but I don’t have an issue overcoming that. I just wish to give credit to the complementary structures of work of men and women. In order for women to not act like a second rate copy of men, how can they shape their work in accordance with nature to fulfill the complementary aspect of this work? And where is guidance in this to be found?
Thank you Gianni, this is helpful. I feel I am getting an inner image of what this difference between male and female root. I wish to understand it deeper, to aim the more prescisely, and see where I might be flawed in my perception. Are there any further ressources on that? (I have a book on women in Kabbalah, and read the blog, and listened to New life sessions… but is there anything else). What is striking me is that women actually adapt to the men´s work, supporting them, but they don´t relate to their root specifically. Like in that example of raising girls and boys… if done in an integral way, they owuld need different surroundings. Then how can the women´s work be copied from the men´s work , if nature has designed us in a way that male and female are complementing and not the same.
Hi Gianni, I am currently reading the book the Psychology of the integral Society. Two questions on that:
1) Which was the intention of this book? Some of it reads like a practical guideline, some a bit like a utopia. So, how to study it correctly?
2) In this book, but also from other ressources it’s mentioned that women would lack the opportunity to unite ;(Topic Boys and Girls, pg 222 and fillows in the softcover book). Which is why this approach in the book is considered to be primarily for boys and men… and there is only a little notion that for girls it might need a different programme. What is the source leading to this assumption and how should I relate to it as a woman? In this book it’s clearly not about the feminine or male sides of each human. Now, does this mean that BB states women due to their genetic code are unable to unite anyways? How shall I justify my work then… being a woman? Do women have a different way to reach bestowal, if they are already considered unable to unite, or is it time to pack up then?
