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.
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.
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 to relate to them. You talked a lot in class about the implications of the discussion on the reduction. So I want to understand where the sand fits into your teaching. Does it have value? What is the nature of its relationship with the Holy? And another thing, what about Stra Achra?
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 do 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 the sitra achra.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer