The issue of reducing light and light

I didn't quite understand, is light an illusion?

I accidentally wrote "Maor." I meant "Lor," of course. All of this according to their bizarre system, of course.

So what is the point of the discussion about whether light is the essence of the Kabbalah?

I don't know if you are familiar with this article:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJAdMjYRm7IRElmb0F6RFpENkU
which was not published, and was circulated among my acquaintances of Rabbi Avivi, but it analyzes the issue of the surrounding and filling and claims that the words of the Tanya are fundamentally wrong and have no root or branch in Kabbalah.

I searched your site and I cannot find your full explanation of the thought of why it is nonsense.

However, a few minutes ago a guy named Harel asked you about this matter, and I add to you, this cold - which may or may not be in line with your opinion.

I will point out that there is a great similarity between you and Avivi, except that you are in the field of philosophy and he is in Kabbalah, and I would highly recommend that you talk to him. He is intelligent, sober, wise and has rich and exotic knowledge.

I clarify this in the book I am currently writing about Israeli thought. The claim that everything is God and everything else is an illusion and nothing is real raises the question of whose illusion? Who is the ruler? In essence, this means that I do not exist and you do not exist and nothing exists apart from Him. Which is of course nonsense.

Thanks for the answer

Indeed, I have always wondered who the mushela is - and I answered myself that God deceives Himself because He thereby achieves a kind of new insight. A kind of meditation of a high need.

These ideological trends are very common in the new era, and discuss the world as a kind of divine experiment to experience matter, of the essence, of imperfection through its clothing in human bodies and the world. The lonely person who comes to the abolition of being in the Chabad understanding of there being nothing else besides Him, resets the game and seeks to return to the initial state. As they say: God made nothing into being and the righteous make what is into nothing

In another style, according to the Ramchal's explanation of the need to discover uniqueness, it may be said that the need, which is a high need, is for God himself. And indeed, things are puzzling, but if we accept, we will accept (laughs).

In any case, the beautiful and serious attempt to trace the thinking of the Rashi is found in the long article by Professor Yoram Yaakovson: “The Creation Theory of the Rashi from Ladi”, in the journal Be’er Sheva, Part 2, I think.

All the best

Everything you wrote seems to me to be a falsehood, a lie. What does it mean that we are his illusion? These are just word games. And the one who thinks these thoughts himself is also him? So what is all this for? And doesn't he know the truth about himself that there is no one else besides him?

Apparently, in order to know this, there is a need for distancing and narrowing. This is very similar to the development of consciousness of a baby who begins to be aware of himself only when he does not experience unity with everything around him and understands that there is him and his mother and that they are different. The second stage of this is that he knows himself. This self has always existed but is unconscious. Awareness was created with the separation. And so, in a much more distant way, we can say that God knows himself through the narrowing and separation of the world from him.

I think there is such a side to Ramchal if we say that when the uniqueness is revealed, it will be understood retroactively that there was no evil at all and there was no free choice at all. It turns out that the one who will understand this is God himself. This is indeed an interpretation of Ramchal's words, and if I find the source, I will send it.

As mentioned, all this talk is empty of content. It's just lip service.

Lip-smacking is an excellent, albeit long-term, way to connect with the truths behind the mumbles. We all began our connection with all our mental concepts this way, starting with the acquisition of speech and thought.

Of course, a baby who is in the stage of meaningless syllables should not be expected to hit the mark and produce only correct words, and natural gibberish is part of the game of growth. And so here too, naturally and legitimately, the naivety outweighs the plannedness, but in the end, after many experiences, some of the abstract and revolutionary concepts find a place even within the narrow minds of people like us.

It is worth not mocking the giants of man and the great minds from a place of narrow-mindedness, at the very least so as not to cause burdensome obligations and unnecessary twists and turns down the road.

successfully

Thank you. You too.

“The purpose of knowing is that we will not know”.
The absurdity of this issue is precisely the key to understanding that God is beyond human error.
Rabbi Nachman posed the question of empty space as the mother of all questions. On the one hand, divine transcendence is necessary, and on the other hand, divine immanence is necessary.

Shalom Rabbi
I was happy to read your trilogy, thank you.
If you could explain and expand on what the difference is between light and light and what the meaning of tzimzum in light but not in light, etc.
Although I agree with the Gra”a's method of tzimzum in its simplest form, I would be happy to understand the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
In addition, is there any basis for the differences between the types of tzimzum?
Thank you!

I don't have much to add. The argument there is that there is a reduction not in the Deity itself (the light) but in something that emanates from it (the light). In the language of the Kabbalists, this is not a reduction in His invisible essence but in the light of infinity (and the assumption is that the light of infinity is not the essence).