The Hasidic movement

I didn't understand..
Did I present it incorrectly or do you think it's unfounded?

You described it in a rather minor way. The Hasidic basis is a perception of the Tzimtzum not as simple as it is, and this is complete absurdity. Just nonsense.

Your Honor, with all due respect, how do you know that this is “just” nonsense? You are belittling the immense greatness of Torah and spirit..and it is not so clear how and why..? Do you necessarily assume that what is not understood by a person like you, and especially a person at your spiritual level, is necessarily not true? Do you necessarily assume that you can necessarily understand everything in the mysteries of existence with a rational perception? Isn't man, and certainly the most reasonable man, even if he is very intelligent, may be very limited..

I rejected here unfounded perceptions. This is a rejection by virtue of difficulty and not by virtue of misunderstanding. I do not know where you derive your appreciation for these arguments from, but even if you are right, this is no reason to accept unfounded things from them.
A person is certainly limited, and this is exactly why I do not accept the words of any person just because he said them.
In short, a judge has only what his eyes see.
(By the way, I am also an extraordinary intellectual, and I do not understand how you reject my words with your low virtue. A person is limited and cannot understand everything. How does this argument sound to you?)

On the 12th of Tishrei, 5773

What is the puzzlement about the concept of a 'reduction that is not as simple as it seems', after all, how much ink has been spilled by philosophers on the question of whether the world exists or not. Recently, a new book was published that discusses the subject to which the site owner devoted an entire column. So what is so puzzling if the riddlers held to the philosophical concept that the existence of the world is epistemic and not ontic 🙂

With greetings, Epistemus Gorenitzius, a man of Ontus

I think that the essence of the statement that the world is void towards God is that 'when I am to myself what am I?', man and the world have no value and meaning except in being a representative and fulfilling the will of his Creator, and man also has no power and ability without the help of his Creator.

Without being the emissary of my Creator ‘When I am to myself what am I?’ But being the ambassador of the King of Kings ‘If I am here – everything is here’

Line 2
… So what is so strange if the Hasidim held…

[ And perhaps this is inherent in the essence of Hasidism according to the Ramach”el, that the uniqueness of the Hasid is that he does not see only the personal interest of ‘fulfilling his duty’ but rather places his Creator at the center in a constant aspiration ‘to bring pleasure to his Creator’ }

With blessings, Aga”a

1) “Tzimzom not as simple” in the sense that everything is God is certainly not true. Or in the language of the Maratha, he is lying to himself.
2) “Tzimzom as simple” in the sense that the infinite subtracted itself for the benefit of creation is out of the question. We do not subtract anything from the Creator. (Unless if you want to be ungrateful)
3) When we carefully examine the words of the Ari on pages 11-12 of the Tree of Life (a good review, like the Maharishi Kanfanton and the Maharashi in the Gemara) and try to create a coherent picture of the concepts that Rav Zelha brought (from the Maharashi in his name) we must create a distinction between the infinite and the light of infinity. Only in this way do the problems in the two branches reconcile nicely.
4) The reduction that the Ari speaks of is in the infinite light that is above the unattainable God (we will call it infinity) “Behold, then He reduced Himself infinitely at the middle point which is in the middle of His real light”
5) The difference between the old Rebbe and the Kabbalists who preceded him is in what way that reduction was, and there and only there is the matter of “not as it is” and the main issue is generally in the mental aspect, which according to the Chabad system goes on a consciousness of cancellation. And so on.
6) The most important thing is to read the Ari in the original carefully. To be careful with the words and to create a continuous reading. After having this, we can talk about the different interpretations. And the chooser will choose.

This is exactly how the rabbi explains the controversy, and in fact, according to his method, there is no controversy. In my opinion, too, because one side is nonsense, then they necessarily don't really mean it (the principle of kindness). But the Lubavitcher Rebbe insists that there is.

In the book of Esau, 2017

Yehoshua, peace be upon him,

It is clear to us that the reduction is in the light of the Holy One, that the two aspects - reduction in the literal sense or not - are parallel to the two aspects of light in physics. Is light divided into particles or does it appear in waves? And so is the discussion regarding the world and man. Is it an independent particle or a projection of the light of the place in God, and as I mentioned above, the Hasid of the Ramach sees his being as focused on doing the will of his Creator, as a ray of light extending from the Lord of all.

With greetings, Hillel Feiner-Glossinos