tsimtsum

[didymus]

I was reading about Isaac Luria's philosophy regarding the primordial catastrophe; tsimtsum, in which elements of the Divine Being were splintered into an infinity of broken pieces. These "shards" are the stuff of creation and may have been the splintering of God in order to destroy the principle of evil from within.

Is the responsibilty still perceived as being strictly Jewish to reunite these scattered shards of light? Tikkun olam

When I read this it spoke to me. I pictured all of us humans, Jewish and non Jewish alike, as being these scattered shards of light. All of us are splintered from our and seperated from God. Now whenever I look at someone I see a lost shard of light that has been scattered here on earth. I think all could benefit from this belief that once reunited the light will truly shine across the globe and the universe.

 

[dauer]

Some are universalist in this belief, some are not universalist in this belief. It depends. The problem I think you're talking about is how to gather the sparks, and for some this can only be done by fulfilling a mitzvah, in which case the actions a gentile can do are very limited (7 noahide laws.) But for other that's not necessarily the way to look at it.

There are also some who view the nature of the Jewish and non-Jewish soul as identical and some who view the nature as different. As part of my morning davening I do a brief visualization, when I accept the commandment to love my nieghbor as myself, sending out light from my heart to all the people I will see that day and picturing them as sparks of divine light in living, breathing bodies.

You'll find if you read that there are a number of different approaches to any particular issue. Tzimtzum could be a contraction of the light, or it could just be a concealment, to say that the perception of the light would be too much for us, that pure oneness. It can get a little psychological sometimes. And even this there are different versions.

Dauer

 

[didymus]

very cool. I like the idea that we are all divine sparks of light that were scattered from the Ultimate Source or oneness as you say. Big Bang has similarities to this catastrophe and breaking of the vessel that contained the divine light now here we are trying to find our way back to the source. However unless this reuniting with the One is collective it would not serve the greater purpose. I don't get off on knowing that I am "found" and others are lost. We all need to coalesce our spirits and souls and then true enlightenment will occur.

 

[dauer]

Very true. The reality map can't work well in the long term in this age if it becomes triumphalist. But I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

 

[didymus]

I think that was a Freudian slip from my inclination to debate certain aspects of Christianity. There is a mindset in many Christian churches and communities that boasts of "being saved" and having the knowledge and security of where that person is going in the afterlife. I don't know, it seems so selfish to me. You didn't say anything nor did this thread imply that this was happening. But I'm not here to discuss that and I'll keep Christian arguements off of this thread and the Judaism baord as much as possible.

 

[dauer]

Okay. That makes more sense now. I'm going to make a few more comments on your earlier post.

Big Bang has similarities to this catastrophe and breaking of the vessel that contained the divine light now here we are trying to find our way back to the source.

The is a book called God and the Big Bang which I have not read that discusses this at length, not from an apologetic perspective.

However unless this reuniting with the One is collective it would not serve the greater purpose.

I sometimes wonder if there is any value to spiritual practice at all. Certainly I benefit from it, but I don't believe my prayers can help anyone else. Psychologically I think they can help me and perhaps I can justify my actions that way, and the same for meditation. So I think that it can be of value, but I put my foot down at monasticism. And the kabbalists weren't talking about running away from the world. They were functioning members of society, with some exceptions.

But I think what you might be talking about is whether the individual perceives the unfamiliar parts of the world as an other outside of God's grace. I don't think that approach is healthy.

We all need to coalesce our spirits and souls and then true enlightenment will occur.

How do you think we could best accomplish this? I feel it's not something that requires uniformity, but only tolerance. I can even see a complete atheist as a godly person, even a complete reductionist who despises religion and says any benefit gained from any spiritual practice can be categorized and traced to its source in the brain.

 

[didymus]

I sometimes wonder if there is any value to spiritual practice at all. Certainly I benefit from it, but I don't believe my prayers can help anyone else. Psychologically I think they can help me and perhaps I can justify my actions that way, and the same for meditation. So I think that it can be of value, but I put my foot down at monasticism. And the kabbalists weren't talking about running away from the world. They were functioning members of society, with some exceptions.
I for one do believe that prayer is effective on others. I have seen several cases. I think what is important is that the individual praying not pray for a specific outcome. This to me is playing God. I prefer to pray that someone may be touched by God and sense that divine presence within and outside of them.

But I think what you might be talking about is whether the individual perceives the unfamiliar parts of the world as an other outside of God's grace. I don't think that approach is healthy.

I'm not sure I follow you here.


How do you think we could best accomplish this? I feel it's not something that requires uniformity, but only tolerance. I can even see a complete atheist as a godly person, even a complete reductionist who despises religion and says any benefit gained from any spiritual practice can be categorized and traced to its source in the brain.

I think, as we were saying, that we are all shards of light that have been scattered and therefore we must all have been connected originally. I agree that uniformity is unnecessary. Uniformity in our outward devotion and acts is not what matters. I do think that as we all have a spirit and a soul that what we sense while in states of prayer and meditation are similar. Language of the heart and soul is universal. therefore a collective awakening of the spirit may have unintentional manifestations of uniformity .

I also agree that a complete atheist can be godly. Atheists are some of the kindest people I have met. They tend to believe in equality and genuine goodness towards others. I think it is their perception of religion is the obstacle. I've always said an atheist is someone with a resentment towards God.

 

[didymus]

one of my comments in the last post is in your quote. I don't have this thing down yet.

 

[dauer]

didymus, it's like parentheses. The first part of the command goes at the beginning of the text you want to highlight. The second part, the /quote, goes at the end.

What I said I thought you were talking about is condemnatory belief that divides one group from another, sets the groups somehow against each other.

I think, as we were saying, that we are all shards of light that have been scattered and therefore we must all have been connected originally.

This is not what I was saying, though I'm not objecting to you saying it. I'm pan/panentheist and view tzimtzum as God making possible the existence of smaller minds that won't be completely overwhelmed by dimming the constant experience of God's oneness for us. This is tzimtzum as concealment, one way to view it as concealment. But I also don't believe this. It's just one of the reality maps I use. I think the concept that you seem to like is the idea of tikkun, the idea that the sparks can be gathered. These are not just the sparks in people but the sparks in everything. I posted the link recently but I'm going to post it again in this thread because there is a liberal organization called tikkun that, while somewhat Jewish, is actually very interfaith. But their ideology is extremely liberal. Their core vision explains who they are and what they do.

http://www.tikkun.org/

I agree that uniformity is unnecessary. Uniformity in our outward devotion and acts is not what matters. I do think that as we all have a spirit and a soul that what we sense while in states of prayer and meditation are similar. Language of the heart and soul is universal. therefore a collective awakening of the spirit may have unintentional manifestations of uniformity .

This is possible. I am always the skeptic, at least as much as I can stomach it, but materialism doesn't seem to be the way and if the world can grow together in its awe and wonderment I think it's most likely some of the differences between religions would fade. But I also think that each religion offers something different and that this balance of paths is ultimately good. That will be for future generations to worry about.

I also agree that a complete atheist can be godly. Atheists are some of the kindest people I have met. They tend to believe in equality and genuine goodness towards others. I think it is their perception of religion is the obstacle. I've always said an atheist is someone with a resentment towards God.

How do you see perception of religion as an obstacle for an atheist? If the atheist is a good person, what more is needed?

Dauer

 

[didymus]

I think one's perception of religion can influence their belief in God if that particular religious view is the extent of their God experience and that experience is negative. Some may take it upon themselves to delve further and dabble with other theologies or philosphies but others may shut the door on it.

For example one may have been raised around Catholicism only to find it harsh and condemning. This type of foundation could lead one to say,"I don't believe that, I know if there were a God He wouldn't be like this." Or, that is a bunch of malarki, I don't buy it."

I'm sure there are better examples than these but in this sense religion can shut one's mind to any further exploration of God or impress upon them a feeling of disbelief.

 

[didymus]

I didn't answer the second part of your question. If that person is good than I don't think anything else is needed. I guess the real question is are they satisfied and happy people. Not all good people are happy or content. I think there is a yearning in most human beings to seek God or a Higher Being at some point in their lives. Whether this occurs early in one's life or later is another issue.

 

[dauer]

I agree with you about how some atheists respond to religion. I think with some this stance is very pronounced such that the rejection is always, "But God is A so therefore he can't B because C." And I think that happens a lot. At the same time, I'm not as sure that all people develop a need for a higher being, except perhaps for the occasional reverberating memories from childhood.

It seems to me like any sort of awe, even the awe of an orthodox atheist, would satisfy those feelings should they arise. Even if this is awe at the improbability of the world or the mechanistic nature of the animal (including human) kindgom or the grandeur of the cosmos, of the material of the world, or of having a child, or even self-awe at one's life or one's creations, I'm not sure why God is necessary for this happiness. It seems like a step back toward the "us and them" view that proliferates in orthodox religion. They are suffering, maybe in need of saving, even if it's not something that should be done because it's not right to missionize to them. This is what I am hearing. Am I hearing incorrectly?

Dauer

 

[human1111]

I was reading about Isaac Luria's philosophy regarding the primordial catastrophe; tsimtsum, in which elements of the Divine Being were splintered into an infinity of broken pieces. These "shards" are the stuff of creation and may have been the splintering of God in order to destroy the principle of evil from within.

Is the responsibilty still perceived as being strictly Jewish to reunite these scattered shards of light? Tikkun olam

When I read this it spoke to me. I pictured all of us humans, Jewish and non Jewish alike, as being these scattered shards of light. All of us are splintered from our and seperated from God. Now whenever I look at someone I see a lost shard of light that has been scattered here on earth. I think all could benefit from this belief that once reunited the light will truly shine across the globe and the universe.

It is funny as I've watched lectures today about Shvirat Kelim today... These "pieces" are for EVERYONE to unite. Jew = yehudi (one who wants to unite with the Source). What matters is what is inside rather outside....

This whole subject is VERY complex... Tzimtzum Alef/Beht... Olam Nekudim, Katnut, Gadlut, and dozens of other details.

 

[kabbalah]

the tzimtzum! very interesting and complex subject

I recommend all people to read baal hasulam's commmentary on The Tree of Life by the Ari http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/commentary.htm it explains a in a lot more detail about the tzimtzum, yet is still very difficult ot understand,

Basically, the tzimtzum is called the first restriction where the created being refuses to receive the light of the creator for egoic purposes. The tzimtzum is unchanging, meaning that no human is capable of receiving the creator's light (except for a very tiny trickle of light from worldly pleasures) unless it is for altruistic purposes. The main way to reach tikkun (correction) is in your intention. By studying kabbalah, one can learn how to (with the creator's help) change their egoistic desires into altruistic ones. Physical Mitzvot can help, but they do not do a lot without the proper intention, as it is said, "mitzvah bli kavana keguf bli neshama" (mitzva without intention is like a body without a soul). Mitzvot without the proper intention still help in the process of tikkun, but Mitzvot with the proper intention helps thousands of times more. A true mitzva is any altruistic act performed solely with the intention of benefitting the Creator, while expecting no reward in return.

 

[bananabrain]

I recommend all people to read baal hasulam's commmentary

i understand your eagerness to share r. ashlag's insight, but this could be construed as somewhat pushy. whilst i wouldn't call myself an expert, i have some familiarity with his work myself and it is fairly advanced stuff which is, moreover, exclusively aimed at jews. you should remember that this is a comparative religion site, aimed at dialogue. we are interested in *your* opinion - by all means back it up with r. laitman or the ba'al sulam or the ariza"l or whoever, but simply referring people to a text like this is the equivalent (if you'll allow me a somewhat bathetic metaphor) of talking to asking your doctor for his opinion on a rash and him saying "everyone should just read the Big Giant Doctor's Book of Rashes". it's not really an answer. if you are benefiting from studying with r. laitman (and i'm sure you are ) i'm sure you have a more personal PoV to share.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[kabbalah]

Now that I think about it the Tree of Life commentary is a little bit advanced. While there isn't really a "danger" for a begginer or gentile to reading it, you can't gain much from it without hours and hours of intense study.

About it being only for Jews, here is Rav Laitman's position:

"To Be a Jew

Jewishness in the Eyes of Kabbalah

Have you ever came across this line: “There is no God, and I hate Him!” The Jewishenss of Jews is probably the most sensitive issue for the Jews as a community. Being a “good Jew” is still important even to Jews who claim to be total atheists.

But what does it mean to be a Jew? If I am born to a woman who is officially Jewish, I am officially considered a Jew. But where is it mentioned that it should be like that? The Nazis didn’t think it mattered that much and killed people who were officially Christians, because their great grandfather was Jewish. Can it be that we are looking at it from the wrong angle altogether?

If we look in the Torah, the word Yehudi doesn’t appear in it, except as a name of a woman (“Judith – Yehudit - the daughter of Beeri the Hittite” Genesis 26: 34), and even she is not the daughter of a Jew. The first time there is mention of a Jewish nation is in Kings 2 16: 6 (“Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath to Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath”). When did the Jews become a nation?

Was Abraham the Patriarch the first Jew? He came from Mesopotamia, today’s south-east Iraq. What has this land got to do with Jewishness, or with Israel?

That being the case, why do we call him Avraham (Heb. The father of the nation)? We begin to unravel this riddle when we remember that Abraham was titled not the first Jew, but rather the first Hebrew (Ivri)! The first time Abraham is called Ivri is in Genesis 14: 13. But what the narrative doesn’t tell us is when he became a Hebrew, and what this title really means?

The great Kabbalist, Rabbi Baruch Shalom Halevi Ashlag (Rabash), the son of Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag (author of the Sulam commentary on the Zohar), in article No. 17 from 1991, interprets the verse “and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew” (Exodus 2:11), by explaining that an Egyptian is a person who receives for self, whereas a Hebrew is one who receives not for oneself.

Here lies the key to the secret of the origin of the Hebrews. They are not a people, they are actually a state of being! It is a changed focal point. Being a Hebrew is no longer about my ancestry, it is about who I am! The difference between being a Hebrew and being something else is described by Rabash as the difference between being like a beast, or like a human being (Adam). The word Hebrew indicates crossing over something (Ivri comes from the Over, meaning going over something). What is it that we cross over? We go over from one state of being (beastly) to another (human).

The Hebrew word Adam (human) comes from the word Adame (being like). It means being like the Upper One, the Creator. It is best expressed in the words of the prophet Isaiah (14: 14): “???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????” (“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High”).

Thus, any person who succeeds in being like the Creator crosses over from being Egyptian to being Hebrew. In that regard one’s birth religion is irrelevant! It is only our inner state that determines who we are, whether we are Jews or not.

Let us assume for a moment that I examine myself, and find that I am not like the Creator. Even worse, I don’t know who He is, so how can I be like Him? How do I become like Him, and indeed why should I want to be like Him? The way begins in the desire. If I want to become like Him, I am on my way to being a Hebrew. If the thought never crossed my mind, or if it has and I declined the option, then I should at least know, that my Jewishness or Gentileness is no more than something someone has labeled me, that in no way reflects my inner state. "

^^^that is what Laitman says about whether or not Jews can study Kabbalah, I realize this position is somewhat controversial, but I agree with it. Although, Rav Laitman has also said that those who are Jews in this world (ie born as Jews externally) are obligated to study kabbalah, while those who are not born Jewish are allowed to study it but not obligated. Therefore being a Jew of this world is a responsibility, not a priviledge, you are obligated to study kabbalah so that all of mankind can advance through the Jews.

 

[kabbalah]

Also, by obligated, Laitman doesn't mean that every single Jew must intensively study Kabbalah, you can only really study kabbalah if you've reached a "point in the heart" where you feel that you MUST find the meaning of life or you won't be able to fulfill your desires. While it is more necessary for Jews to study kabbalah, if a gentile receives a point in the heart, it cannot do him any harm to study kabbalah in the proper manner.