Ramchal Reception
The Rabbi’s opinion is very important to me. I tried to settle it but I don’t really know.
If I understand correctly, it seems that the Ramchal method of matter is a distinct, existential reality with degrees, stages, that exists in an elevated manner to materiality and then returns to spirituality later on. . And what Kabbalah speaks of is what the law of that distinction is. The same law that God Almighty practices this created distinction throughout its history from the perspective of the soul’s observation of this history and the interpretation of the governing law on this distinct material.
The lawfulness of what matter was conducted at the level of worlds of knots, worlds of dots, a world of nobility, creation, and doing. All of which are truly one but a different layer of the same reality. More fundamental and less so. And every other layer of the differentiating matter conducts itself in a different legal conduct that precedes its choice in causality.
And it seems to me that this works best because Baal Hashem’s method seemingly makes it difficult for God, since if infinity is created, then in prayer we pray to another, God forbid, and not to God, but to infinity and its changes. And if the instruments of Atzilut are created, distinct, then we pray to them, God forbid.
And if everything is God, then God forbid there is a change in God that something separates.
And if this is the Ramchal method, which is just our interpretation of Hashem’s leadership, then it doesn’t work out on a figurative level and also makes it difficult to understand why Hashem acted this way if it has no real meaning. Also, what is the figurative meaning of “Behind the father they went before the mother” in terms of our perception of leadership? And so I thought about the method in this way.
I didn’t understand anything.
To limit questions to a maximum of 3 lines…
My intention was that on the one hand, the author of the halshem claims that there is an influence from God (light in the vessel) that truly limits itself and that from what I understand, it is a fulfillment. Because the bones of infinity enter the vessel at the limit. And on the other hand, God forbid, there are intermediary entities.
On the other hand, the second option of the halshem is also problematic because not every parable in Kabbalah can be converted into a concrete parable.
I don't understand the difficulty. It is clear that the influence of God is given in a limited way. Moreover, He Himself limited Himself to a narrowing, otherwise we would not exist. What is problematic here?
Where does the Rabbi get the idea that otherwise we would not exist?
I don't understand why God needs to limit Himself in order for us to exist. It's okay to limit His influence on us, but why limit His essence? Simply so that He doesn't act with all His might. As the ram's hammer says,
And therefore it's more appropriate. Than to think that God sends some kind of arm that is literally part of His essence and limits Him completely and not just towards us. As the author of the word says. All the more so to limit His essence and make space.. This is the kind of fulfillment that I understand why Leibowitz was outraged about
All of the above opinions are generally rubbish and filth.
Benjamin,
First, we are discussing the Kabbalistic view here. This is the Kabbalistic view. But the explanation also gives, because if He were to fill everything, nothing would exist except Him. When something besides Him exists, then there is a section of reality that did not fill it.
Or,
I really can't follow the discussion with you. You talked about limiting His influence and that is the issue. Now you are moving on to limiting His essence? If you don't like that – you can assume that He did not limit Himself, but only His influence. See my response to Benjamin here.
Oh okay, it would be implied from your words that you mean limiting its essence.. since the reduction according to many simplists is in the infinite light which is the essence of the Name. That's fine.
1. The thing is that I can't understand how, philosophically, it is possible to make a separation between the essence of the Name and its influence.
If there is an influence that is not the essence of the Name, then it turns out that there are two first - the Name and its influence. (-the light and the light)
2. I can't understand whether the creator of the same restriction in that influence is made in what the influence actually goes out towards me, the recipient, or is it a real change in the essence of the influence?
Like, say, I reduce the light of the flashlight or I simply put sunglasses on the person I shine on.
3. And if the answer to these two is positive (that 1. that there are only the essences of God and His influence is simply the action of His essence – thus the light and the light are one in essence… and 2. that the influence is limited only on the part of the recipient and not the language itself in its essence) .. that the influence is only on the part of the recipient and in fact there is an infinite Godhead that acts towards the recipient in its essence without reducing either it or its influence, but rather the result in the field towards the recipient … then we have returned to the starting point of the ram”hal .. that we are speaking only of what is evident from our knowledge and not of the reality of God or His influences in their essence.
The question of whether the light of the Lord is its essence is controversial.
1. If you think that there is no division, then assume that the reduction is its essence. I do not see this as important. But I did not understand why you think there are two primary beings. He is the primary, and his influence is limited. All this seems to me to be a play on words.
2. For whom is the Lord? I really do not understand this complication.
3. 1-2.
Rabbi Michi, what is the point of discussing some Kabbalistic “perception” that is meaningless? The Ari confused himself with “infinity” and was forced to resolve the confusion with “reduction,” that is, the reduction of the confusion.
What is the point of the Rabbi and this nonsense, and what would be missing without these vanities?
I have great difficulty explaining this on a written level and not in speech.
1. It seems difficult to me to say that the Name reduces its essence.. and on the other hand that there is an influence separate from it. This is a philosophical difficulty that is quite familiar from history (the material of the Hyoli, Maimonides) as the Rabbi certainly knows and knows. Then it turns out that there are two primordial ones for the whole.
2. The second's nef”m projects regarding the first.. if there is a reduction in the essence or in its influence which is actually the action of its essence (since we have ruled out the idea of influence “as a renewed ray from it” which requires a change in its essence ..or its doubling or addition to it ..which is all one big nonsense from a philosophical point of view..after all, adding to the essential infinity is absurd)
Another thing:
It seems that this matter may perhaps settle in the matter of what the Rabbinic scholar on the Maimonides (the tenth lesson of Dr. Yazovitz on the Monotheism discusses the subject) and asks what is special about studying the system of metaphysics? After all, it is obvious to all the sages of the world that you will consider it the wisdom of the secret and the act of the chariot..or what is special about the act of Genesis After all, the system of physics is visible to the whole world..
And I say that the difference is between understanding that all these wisdoms are through a systematic logical understanding of matter, as one studies matter. But the act of the Merkava and the act of the Genesis is taking this information and turning it into recognition, studying it in the form of recognition and vision as a kind of spiritual sense that is above the intuitive and its abstraction, and this is similar to what Rabbi Michi says, and something that brings a lot to the difference between learning everything about the color red when a person is color blind and seeing the color red on an experiential phenomenological level, which then will certainly be renewed, although it is not necessarily a renewal on the level of understanding, but certainly a renewal on the level of recognition.
And this is one of the things that I find difficult about Baal HaLeshham's method compared to the Ramachal. The Ramachal tries to reach a place of recognition and the attempt to bring things essentially to the micro level and experience as much as possible and simplify. While the Baal HaShem method says that there is nothing to be achieved, there is no comparison, and there is no recognition, but the whole thing is the study of an empty system.
Thank you for dedicating your time
Or
I don't understand a word. I simply don't understand. I don't see any difficulty and I don't know what to answer.
Regarding the distinction that Shmakh”l is trying to reach recognition and the meaning refers to it as a more intellectual study, that's true. But such study is not an empty system. There is an understanding of the meaning of things on the intellectual level, even if it is not a visual or other recognition.
I will try to put it in other words,
The Ramach”el claims that this is a cognitive perception.
While the Baal HaShem claims that these are objective spiritual factors.
Their origin, according to the Baal HaShem, will be from God.. The difficulty that this method creates is that we pray to those entities that came out of God on the one hand and on the other hand for the coming out of factors from God who are sub-Gods or something like that.. or a division in God Almighty.
This difficulty is great on a philosophical and religious level.. While the Ramach”el method does not fall into this difficulty
It is clear that those who do not believe in Kabbalah do not fail in the failures it contains. This is tautological. The author has already written that Shmahl is not acceptable because he did not deal with Kabbalah. Kabbalah is a concern with the worlds above and not with ourselves (even if through parables).
But in my opinion there is no failure here, because the upper garments of the Holy One are created beings (or ennobled), and do not raise any difficulty. We do not pray to them, but to Him as He reveals Himself through them. The ancient Shomer Emunim author has already elaborated on this.
In short, these are difficulties that were answered hundreds of years ago in futile debates that took place at the time. I do not see anything difficult here. It is possible to accept and it is possible not to, but I do not see any difficulties here.
I understand, thank you very much Rabbi.
The Rabbi just asked another question, regarding the claim that the Ramachal is discussing this world.. It doesn't seem to me to be working.
Even if we assume that the Ramachal says that it is only about the leadership of the world.. he is ultimately discussing the action of Hashem. And this is not “nothing and only an interpretation”
For example – if we talk from the Sefirat Hased .: Then we are talking about how the Holy One acts in His essence so that there will be an action of influence on the distinct in the world of creation which will influence the progression up to the state of things here.
And this is not a discussion at all only about the leadership of this world, both from the side that they are talking about the influence of the leadership on the whole progression of all the worlds of the universe.. and also from the side that they are talking about the Creator's action which is real.
It's like if I tell you, "My father is doing a dance," you'll tell me that there's nothing to it because we're not talking about and describing his limbs, but rather the action of the dance. And since when is an action not a reality? God performs an action in a way that we don't understand, but finally there's an action of kindness here. This is not a reference to this world.. And there's no problem with this either from the perspective of God's fulfillment, which is why we're talking from the perspective that God does not operate according to His infinite reality, but within limits.
Thank you
And here is what the Ramachal writes on the subject:
“And if you say that all these things are a parable and an allusion to higher things, to the conduct and its laws. This too cannot be said, because most of the necessary things were for nothing, because the Tanya was based on the Tanya, and the words of the holy Rabbi Zalela, and the words of the first and last Kabbalists, and above all the words of the Rashbi Zalela, do not teach this, but rather teach that these things exist in actual Sefirot. And here is the place to clarify the truth, because if this foundation is applied properly – everything is understood with real, open and simple understanding, and if this foundation is not properly – all the constructions bloom in the air, and it is impossible to reach an understanding of the necessary things at all.”
(118:10, Pethai Hochma, Petah 7, p. 23)
The claim of the HaShem is that preoccupation with the world is not Kabbalah. What you describe is preoccupation with the actions of the Almighty in the world. The study of physics or psychology is also preoccupation with His actions in the world. Is this also the study of Kabbalah?
The last source you cited from the HaShem indicates that the Ramchal also understood that this is not a parable. As far as I know, there are contradictions in his teaching on this matter, and the HaShem refers to sources where it appears to be a parable.
Therefore, my argument is that the two options of the author's dispute have no real basis.
1. If he meant, for example, – and it is about God's leading the factors of the upper worlds in creation, creation, and action.. I do not see why we should only refer to the end of the chain of events in this world.. God always precedes the world of creation, which is the roots of souls and the distinct. Why would such an argument be empty of Kabbalistic content as a study of psychology?
2. If he did not mean that it is only a parable.. then the author's question is basically invalid.
You reversed 1. The speaker meant that according to Ramachal, this is a parable, but not a parable that describes higher worlds, but rather the opposite: the Kabbalistic discourse on higher worlds is a parable for the psychology of humans and the practices in the world. This is not an area that Kabbalah deals with.
I meant that if according to the method of how the author of the HaShem understands the Ramachal... that it is a parable... then I argue that even for this method, from the understanding of the Ramachal's text, it is impossible to claim that the Ramachal refers to something that describes only this world, since the Ramachal explicitly refers to all the worlds of the universe... similar to the method of Maharai Irgas and Rav Hirira
Simply the Ramach”el refers to what the author of the word says is called created for something that begins in the world of creation and not in the world of nobility. .
That those first beings are created and belong to the world of creation and not to the world of nobility..those first beings that the author of the word raised to the world of nobility. So what difference does it make where the name begins and changes those created beings in nobility or in creation? It's pure semantics
The sage understands that when Shramkhal speaks of these worlds, from his perspective, he is allegorizing layers in the human soul. And certainly nobility and exaltation.
I can't understand how it is possible to reach such an understanding in the Ramachal... and what's more, the Ramachal himself spoke of a Maggid who was revealed to him... So what was revealed to him about this method of the author of the book? What was revealed to him? He to himself?
Haha, of course I don't come with any complaints to the rabbi.
I just think that the claim that the Ramachal has against me from various kabbalists is truly baseless.
This is how the halshem understood Ramchal. Since I did not deal with Ramchal, I have no ability or interest in finding out what he really thought. It also does not seem important to me. The question is what is true and what is not, and not what a certain person thought or said.
According to you, the fact that a Maggid appeared to him means nothing. It is clear that Ramchal agreed that there are spiritual beings such as angels or Maggids. He also agreed that we have a soul. This has nothing to do with the question of the existence of the Kabbalistic worlds.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
