On other concepts of deity and esoteric concepts in general

Dear Rabbi Michi, happy and kosher freedom holiday.
 
 
 
 
I read in my many sins between Seder night and Yom Tov. A little about the false Messiah. Shabbatai Zvi inspired by the spirit of the holiday that speaks of freedom from slavery to Pharaoh. To false idols and to lying, which is idolatry in general. Compared to slavery to the one and only God.
From there, I was drawn to reading about the concept of divinity that was prevalent among the Sabbats. Which speaks of the abstract Infinite as a huge and great light that has two contradictory desires embodied within it, the will of the serpent and Samael, which represent the divine aspect that regrets the reduction and creation of the world and the divine desire to give and receive to create a connection with its creatures and to benefit them. And this is in addition to the opinion that was widespread among the Shabbos that the Light is Infinite. That the Almighty God of Israel is only one of His incarnations. He is actually not the cause of causes, the primary cause or the first existent. Because he is a perfect being who is indifferent to the fate of the world and humans in general. And the creation of the world could only be done through the Light of the Infinite. caught my attention. The matter of the conceptual roots. The Kabbalistic-esoteric from which this movement received its inspiration, many researchers. According to what I have read. We recognize a similar approach to that of Shabtai Zvi in ​​many Kabbalists – who did not go so far as to be worth it. But they argued Similar things. On the question of reduction and the creation of evil, there are different approaches: There is the classical approach that says that reduction occurred in order to create the world and evil was created as a side condition of creation. There is another, more esoteric approach, attributed to Rabbi Yosef Ibn Tabul, who claims that the roots of evil, the harsh laws, and the like, were contained within the Infinite itself. The purpose of creation was from the desire of the Infinite to get rid of its own evil and to purify itself.
It is now clear to me that all of these are esoteric sources. And even more so the far-reaching interpretations that are given to these sources and expand their words beyond the simple.
 
But when I went to the Chabad library to read the books of the first Rebbes and the Baal Shem Tov himself, I noticed a very esoteric phenomenon that hints at paradoxical things of this kind:
*The statement that through His delegation of His bones and His will includes several different components that seem to contradict each other: an interpretation that says that in the last days, God will first be revealed as king over the entire earth. Because it is positive and logical that all the inhabitants of the world should know this. Including the nations of the world, all the unclean and pure animals will purify Him and praise Him. But that afterwards, from His more internal and selfish will, which is a desire beyond the reach of reason and which has no rational reason, He will destroy the nations and the animals, and in general everything that is not directly connected to holiness, from the earth because He wants to return to the world before the Tzimtzum, and in such a world, only the bones of the Godhead themselves, of which the souls of Israel are a part, can exist.
*The statement that there is supposedly a competition for divine abundance between the wicked who try to cling to the suction from the divinity through the backs of holiness and through making a living from the shell of Venus. From which their clarification will come and thus their time will be allotted to be longer, because otherwise the Creator will regret their creation, as in the generation of the flood.
*A statement that there are two different levels or worlds in which, on the one hand, the wicked can be considered from a higher source of chaos and the righteous from nobility and vice versa: Esau of high compared to Jacob of low and Haman of high compared to Mordecai of low. Divine enlightenment that is more embodied in the peoples of the lands than in the scholars of Torah and vice versa, which will be clarified in the future.
and so on
*Similar statements in the book Gali Razia, which speaks of an inner darkness that existed before the creation of the world and hid and sucked away from the light of creation.
 
I know that you do not accept books as a source of authority for a view and do not think that one statement or another says anything about reality. My question is simply;
What do you think about esoteric concepts in general? They often try to humanize God, so to speak, or give him different faces, different qualities, and different faces that are even contradictory, and not in a metaphorical way, but beyond that – and claim that this is precisely how things can be understood more easily from the ends. They do not claim to perceive them in a rational and limiting way. (Rabbi Dr. Moshe Roth, who was your student, if I am not mistaken, in his books Fantasy Judaism, on his blog and on Facebook, often makes this claim – that precisely reducing every explicit and humanizing statement to rational explanations diminishes the divine greatness. And we must be prepared to accept things as they are, as they are.)
I ask this because I too have a tendency toward rationality. I have a great aversion to the abstraction of spiritual worlds as something that is truly real and multifaceted in the same way that it exists in our reality. But sometimes it seems that the abstraction and esotericism that grows out of the assumption that there are hidden, independent or real desires within the spiritual worlds and also with God can open a door to understanding many things in the universe, of course, as long as it does not fall into idolatry.
What do you think? What is the boundary in your opinion between seemingly illustrative parables and perceptions of deep spiritual things in their simplest form and in language that is seemingly hidden but precisely because of this is translated into desires, passions, split desires, and the like, as in simple language? And what is the boundary in your opinion between a monastic conception of divinity and a conception of idolatry?