Reduction and dimensions
Hello Rabbi,
I finished the series of lessons on reduction and I have a few questions:
1. I didn't understand how the suggestion of dimensions solves the issue. How can one even understand and talk about higher dimensions?
2. Doesn't this simply reduce(!) the question to whether it was reduced in our dimensions? That is, in our 3 dimensions there is still a problem compared to the other dimensions that we don't have, and therefore there is no conflict between the existences. (Wow, I think I really didn't understand how dimensions work...)
3. How do light and illumination fit into the whole picture?
4. What does raising sparks mean in this image? Discovering deeper dimensions? How can we reach dimensions that are not within us in the first place?
I would be happy if you could explain it to me, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Hello.
1-2. The claim that it does not exist in our three-dimensional universe, but this is not a reduction of it. A three-dimensional volume does not subtract anything from a higher-dimensional space (just as a line does not subtract surface or area from volume). What is the problem with talking about higher dimensions? The fact that you cannot imagine something does not prevent you from understanding that it exists and perhaps even understanding more about it. Imagination is not understanding.
3. Do not combine. Neither light nor darkness can fill all of reality, otherwise there would be no existence for anything other than them. Talking about a reduction in light but not in light does not help, unless you say that the infinity of light does not interfere with the existence of objects and the world. Then I do not know what that infinity is and what we have gained from it.
4. It is worth asking the person who talks about raising sparks what he is aiming for. Here it is not a question of contradiction (I see no principled objection to talking about raising sparks. It does not lead to contradictions as far as I understand) but of meaning (what is meant). Therefore, this question is not important for our purpose.
Thank you very much! What about sacred and profane? Is there such a thing as profane?
Why not? I didn't understand the question. The degree of holiness of a place or object is probably the degree of directness of the divine appearance in it/through it.
I meant, is there anything completely mundane without holiness?
I didn't understand the question. Are you talking about a mundane act, about an object that is mundane? I think there are both. A stone is a mundane object, and eating gum with a bazooka is a mundane act.
I meant the relationship to them. You talked a lot in class about the implications of the discussion on the reduction. So I want to understand where the world fits into your teaching. Does it have value? What is the nature of its relationship to the Holy? And another thing, what about the next straw?
If the questions are intrusive or irrelevant then there is no need. Thank you very much for this wonderful site.
The attitude towards mundane acts is divided into several categories: There are acts of permission (such as those I have mentioned here) to which there is no special attitude. And there are acts of permission that are not included in the halakhah but are not completely mundane (such as morality and the like). The attitude towards these is that there is an obligation to perform them even though it is not a halakhic obligation.
I don't know what their attitude is towards the sacred. I don't understand the question. Also regarding Sitra Achra.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer