God’s intervention in the world
Hello Rabbi
I wanted to ask the rabbi about his attitude towards Kabbalah’s intervention in the world.
In lessons 5 and 6 in the series of lessons on the Kabbalah and the World, the rabbi comes to the conclusion that there is no intervention of the Kabbalah in the world because there are no gaps in nature – if we assume that the laws of nature operate, then it is impossible or there is no reason to assume that the Kabbalah intervenes in the world.
What does the Rabbi say about the problem of body and soul? After all, if a person has free choice (which is an assumption accepted by the Rabbi), then there is essentially some intervention here from another world – not measured by physical indicators – within the physical world. Do I (as a spiritual being) cause things in the physical world to move?
If the rabbi adheres to this method, isn’t there a bit of inconsistency in this? On the one hand, the reason the rabbi rules out the possibility that God intervenes in reality is that the rabbi assumes that the physical world exists apart from Him, and on the other hand, the rabbi claims that there is free choice?
And perhaps on the contrary – can we perhaps argue that it is precisely there – in the transition between the personal spiritual world and the personal physical world – that the Kabbalah can intervene, precisely in the choices of humans? (Something that the Rabbi said was simply not possible….)
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Our eyes do not see the intervention of will in nature.
The experience of will arises from brain activity. And that brain activity also stimulates the muscles to act.
The correlation gives the illusion that will is the cause. But it is only an illusion.
The judge,
It is not the eye that is intended to see such things, but the mind. The will is an integral part of human nature, not something transcendent that ”intervenes” in the nature of the muscles.
If our perception of the effect of the will is an illusion, why don't we conclude that your conclusion, according to which it is an illusion, is also not an illusion?
I didn't really come to determine what is right.
I came to negate the emotional perception that is common knowledge that I accept as a fact of nature.
There is no such fact of nature.
And reason says that it is more likely that the experience of desire is a result. Just as the movement of a muscle is a result.
The reason for the experience of desire is not something that is experienced, that is, it is not something conscious.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
