164 replies to this topic

[volgadon]

http://www.readbooko...adOnLine/62601/

I apologise for the ironic and somewhat negative tone of the story, but once you get past that it presents a rather traditional understanding of the, well, a meaning of song in Kabbalah.

[mfbukowski]

wenglund, on 02 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Here is the second part of the post:

...Now there are two different kinds of heretics (apikorsim). The first kind is a heretic due to external influences (lit. external wisdoms) – and it is important to know what to respond to them, like it says in Pirkei Avot. These heretics’ concerns can be answered. They are only heretics due to their external influences, which come from excesses due to the shattering of the vessels. (Ok, time out. Shattering of the vessels refers to a stage in the creation of the world that is, so to speak, well after the “contraction.” The simple – and therefore inadequate – explanation is that G-d began creation by pouring an awesome effluence of light into vessels that were too weak to contain the light, causing them to shatter. The broken pieces fell into the world, and became the world’s excesses – that is, aspects of the world that seem particularly meaningless or even evil due to the greatness of G-d’s concealment. Once these broken vessels are repaired (“Tikkun”), the world will be whole. The deeper explanation reveals that the “shattering” really refers to the lack of perception and insight on our part. If we can repair our own shattered perception (the vessels through which we perceive the light of G-d in the world), we will see how the world already is whole, and how it always was whole. This is probably the pithiest explanation of the shattering of the vessels you’ll ever see. The point Rebbe Nachman is bringing out is that since the “shattering” was caused by a lack of perception, all that is required in order to harmonize the chaos is to add in information and wisdom or insight. Therefore, it is possible to answer these “heretics’” concerns.)

However, there is another type of heretic – one whose wisdom is not wisdom at all (that is, not even “external wisdom”). However, since their “wisdoms” seem sophisticated, they are viewed incorrectly as being wise. This is like one who concocts a whole convoluted understanding in a Torah subject, and due to his sophistication he is able to pull the wool over the eyes of those who do not know better. There are countless questions that philosopher consider that truly are not wise questions at all. In truth, they are corrupt from their core – human wisdom, however, has no answer to their questions – so they seem wise. This is because their questions come from the empty space. Just like it is impossible to find G-d, so to speak, in the empty space, so too it is impossible to answer these heretics’ questions – otherwise, the empty space would not be empty. (Confused yet? The idea here is that since certain questions are really outside of the realm of logic – essential questions of faith, for example – it makes no sense to apply human wisdom to them. These questions touch upon the heart of the disconnect between this world of lies, and the truth of G-d.) About these heretics, it is said “none who go to her return.” Proverbs, 2:19. Return can also mean “answer.” In other words, there is no answer to their strange questions.....

However, if there is a great and righteous person, like Moses, he will be able to see inside the latter heresy. Even though their questions cannot be answered, as such, the righteous person through his delving into these matters can nonetheless save countless souls who have been trapped inside these heresies’ grasps. The answers to their questions are silence, for there are no answers – there are no words that can answer them. And the world was created through G-d’s words, His speech. In speech, there is wisdom; and through G-d’s speech, the whole world, and all of its details, were created – like it says “Everything was made with wisdom.” Psalms 104. And “With the words of G-d’s lips, the heavens were created.” Psalms 33. But words are limited, since they exist within the world. The empty space is outside of the world. It is empty of everything (seemingly). It has beyond speech – even intellect that is higher than speech; and so, the confusion that emanates from there is silence.

The parallels here with Wittgenstein's later philosophy are quite amazing.

Quote

One of the most radical characteristics of “later” Wittgenstein is his view of the task of philosophy. The “conventional” view of philosophy, accepted by almost every Western philosopher since Plato, is that the philosopher’s task was to solve a number of seemingly intractable problems using logical analysis (for example, the problem of “free will”, the relationship between “mind” and “matter”, what is “the good” or “the beautiful” and so on). However, Wittgenstein argued in Philosophical Investigations that these “problems” were in fact pseudo-problems that arose from the philosophical misuse of language. We run into confusion when we try to make language do something that it cannot. Some questions/problems simply do not have an answer – and as such they are not truly questions. The true task for philosophy is not to create grand metaphysical systems, but to identify and defuse linguistic confusion “to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle”. Philosophy therefore has a therapeutic aim.

Quote

The whole sense of the book might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence - Wittgenstein

I have posted here often about the affinity of Wittgenstein's philosophy and the way Mormons look at the world.   Now we see parallels between both and Kabbalah.

Obviously the idea that God created through his "word" also has affinities with social constructivism- especially when God as an exalted human who interacts linguistically through revelations to his children.   I have also posted a lot on that topic.

It isn't surprising since Wittgenstein's approach lends itself to a mystical approach to life, but one wonders if Wittgenstein studied Kabbalah

Yep, this should be interesting indeed!

Edited by mfbukowski, 04 March 2012 - 07:29 PM.

[volgadon]

mfbukowski, on 04 March 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

The parallels here with Wittgenstein's later philosophy are quite amazing.






I have posted here often about the affinity of Wittgenstein's philosophy and the way Mormons look at the world.   Now we see parallels between both and Kabbalah.

Obviously the idea that God created through his "word" also has affinities with social constructivism- especially when God as an exalted human who interacts linguistically through revelations to his children.   I have also posted a lot on that topic.

It isn't surprising since Wittgenstein's approach lends itself to a mystical approach to life, but one wonders if Wittgenstein studied Kabbalah

Yep, this should be interesting indeed!

Very pertinent observation. I think you'll be pleased to hear that you aren't the only one struck by the resemblence.

Quote

http://www.jewishind...print&sid=11497
[6] See Ludwig Wittgenstein at the end of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, in which he states, what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.  My teacher, Prof. Yehuda Liebes, has an article comparing Rebbe Nachman and Wittgenstein on this point.  http://pluto.huji.ac...r/WITGNSTN.pdf

  

Liebes pointed out that despite the many conceptual differences, both R. Nahman and Wittgenstein share the notion of an active silence rather than a passive one.

Edited by volgadon, 04 March 2012 - 08:41 PM.

[mfbukowski]

volgadon, on 04 March 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Very pertinent observation. I think you'll be pleased to hear that you aren't the only one struck by the resemblence.

Liebes pointed out that despite the many conceptual differences, both R. Nahman and Wittgenstein share the notion of an active silence rather than a passive one.

Very interesting!

There seem to be an inordinate number of Eastern Europeans drawn to similar ways of seeing reality- several notable Poles especially, and then the tendency seems to jump the Atlantic and flourish in the US where something called "American Philosophy" including Pragmatism became a major force.

Conceptually the notion is that language creates social reality, that we are "gods" creating our selves culturally in a man-made "reality".  That goes well of course with the Mormon human God and probably early Jewish anthropomorphism.

But by extension the whole idea of Manifest Destiny fits well with the pioneer going forth to create order out of disorder by settling and conquering and creating a humanized reality where there was only "matter unorganized".  That's where the Mormons come in as I see it- the concept is really very similar.

When winter comes, for the pioneer, it becomes obvious that human effort only goes so far and sometimes chaos (linguistic confusion in the philosophical version) wins.

Winter is Silence.   Nothing more can be said or done, but silent submission to the forces of the universe in spite of man's best efforts.  Science and rationality fail and raw non-verbal experience, spiritual or otherwise, is all that's left.   And often we learn best through suffering, or as Mormons would say, "We come to this world to be tried and tested".

To me, this is the core ethos of Mormonism and really any mystical system based on revelation.  Truth is found ultimately in direct non-verbal experience.  Sometimes we can try to define truth, but it is always nebulous,  but what is "real" is raw experience- spiritual and otherwise.

Edited by mfbukowski, 04 March 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[mfbukowski]

volgadon, on 04 March 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Liebes pointed out that despite the many conceptual differences, both R. Nahman and Wittgenstein share the notion of an active silence rather than a passive one.
http://pluto.huji.ac...ar/WITGNSTN.pdf

Any suggestions on the best way to get a translation of this?   Fascinating stuff!

[HiJolly]

mfbukowski, on 04 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Any suggestions on the best way to get a translation of this?   Fascinating stuff!

Kerry Shirts could do it in his spare time...  

HiJolly

[DubaDNura]

This is a wonderful thread. Volgadon hit the nail on the head about my absence from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown (during which time I become a pumpkin). Yesterday, I was very busy.  When I get a free moment, I'll respond to some of these excellent posts.

[wenglund]

DubaDNura, on 02 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

They are only heretics due to their external influences, which come from excesses due to the shattering of the vessels. (Ok, time out. Shattering of the vessels refers to a stage in the creation of the world that is, so to speak, well after the “contraction.” The simple – and therefore inadequate – explanation is that G-d began creation by pouring an awesome effluence of light into vessels that were too weak to contain the light, causing them to shatter. The broken pieces fell into the world, and became the world’s excesses – that is, aspects of the world that seem particularly meaningless or even evil due to the greatness of G-d’s concealment. Once these broken vessels are repaired (“Tikkun”), the world will be whole. The deeper explanation reveals that the “shattering” really refers to the lack of perception and insight on our part. If we can repair our own shattered perception (the vessels through which we perceive the light of G-d in the world), we will see how the world already is whole, and how it always was whole.

I have been reading up on this Kabbalistic notion of "shattered vessel" at Chabad.org and learned of four "worlds" or realms of existence that were part of the creation, each descending below the other in the following order. The four worlds consist of: Adam Kadmun, Akudim, Nikudim, and Berlya.

In a rough sense, these four worlds may correspond with the four creations and kingdoms LDS belief. The four creations consist of: 1) the "birth" of pre-mortal spirit vessels, 2) the "birth" of Adam and Eve's spiritual vessels, 3) the "birth" of fallen man's vessels, and 4) the "birth" of resurrected vessels.

The four kingdoms of the resurrection consist of: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Outer-darkness.

What makes this rough comparison all the more fascinating to me is the interplay of "light," or "glories," within each of these "worlds." Perhaps I will explore this interplay more in-depth in posts to follow, though I would also be pleased to learn the thoughts of others on this specific subject.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 05 March 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[HiJolly]

wenglund, on 05 March 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I have been reading up on this Kabbalistic notion of "shattered vessel" at Chabad.org and learned of four "worlds" or realms of existence that were part of the creation, each descending below the other in the following order. The four worlds consist of: Adam Kadmun, Akudim, Nikudim, and Berlya.

ah...  no...  not in my view.  I see the four worlds as:
Atziluth
Beri'ah
Yetzirah
Assiah
From wikipedia:  "As particular sephirot dominate in each realm, so the primordial fifth World, Adam Kadmon, is often excluded for its transcendence, and the four subsequent Worlds are usually referred to. Their names are read out from Isaiah 43:7, "Every one that is called by My name (Atzilus "Emanation/Close"), and for My glory I have created (Beriah "Creation"), I have formed (Yetzirah "Formation"), even I have made (Asiyah "Action"). Below Asiyah, the lowest spiritual World, is Asiyah-Gashmi ("Physical Asiyah"), our Physical Universe, which enclothes its last two sephirot emanations (Yesod and Malchut).^[3] Collectively, the Four Worlds are also referred to as ABiYA, after their initial letters"
Then again, there are a wide variety of flavors of Kabbalistic teachings.  So, to each his own.  

wenglund, on 05 March 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

In a rough sense, these four worlds may correspond with the four creations and kingdoms LDS belief. The four creations consist of: 1) the "birth" of pre-mortal spirit vessels, 2) the "birth" of Adam and Eve's spiritual vessels, 3) the "birth" of fallen man's vessels, and 4) the "birth" of resurrected vessels.

The four kingdoms of the resurrection consist of: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Outer-darkness.

What makes this rough comparison all the more fascinating to me is the interplay of "light," or "glories," within each of these "worlds." Perhaps I will explore this interplay more in-depth in posts to follow, though I would also be pleased to learn the thoughts of others on this specific subject.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As for Adam Kadmon, well, it helps us understand how Adam is the father of our spirits, amen.

HiJolly

[DubaDNura]

Some quick comments:

1. Translations of Rebbe Nachman: There are translations of his work, Likutei Mohara''n that also contain fairly good comments and explanations.  I have not looked at them in depth, though, so I can't vouch for them - other than to say that people who I trust have told me they are good.

2. Translations of other Chassidic books. If you know where to look online, it is amazing what you can find.  Kehot is a publishing house for the Chabad chassidic sect (chabad.org has been quoted by others a few times above), and they've put together some very good translations of Chassidic discourses. A translation of Chabad's fundamental treatise, Likutei Amarim - Tanya, has been around for awhile. The English almost readable. With the help of the book "Lessons in Tanya" (a 5 volume set), the book becomes quite readable.

3. I don't know anything about Wittgenstein. So I'll have to look him up.

Edited by DubaDNura, 05 March 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[mfbukowski]

DubaDNura, on 05 March 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

3. I don't know anything about Wittgenstein. So I'll have to look him up.

Fascinating guy.  I actually gave up philosophy in an academic sense because I was convinced there were no more problems to be "solved".   Oh yes, there are the final "proofs" that he is right- but all of deconstruction and most of contemp. philosophy in my view is working out the details of his understanding of language.

He was arguably "religious" but not in an organized spiritual sense.   Yet it is clear that he was ultimately a mystic- perhaps not in a religious sense.

[DubaDNura]

wenglund, on 05 March 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I have been reading up on this Kabbalistic notion of "shattered vessel" at Chabad.org and learned of four "worlds" or realms of existence that were part of the creation, each descending below the other in the following order. The four worlds consist of: Adam Kadmun, Akudim, Nikudim, and Berlya.

In a rough sense, these four worlds may correspond with the four creations and kingdoms LDS belief. The four creations consist of: 1) the "birth" of pre-mortal spirit vessels, 2) the "birth" of Adam and Eve's spiritual vessels, 3) the "birth" of fallen man's vessels, and 4) the "birth" of resurrected vessels.

The four kingdoms of the resurrection consist of: Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Outer-darkness.

What makes this rough comparison all the more fascinating to me is the interplay of "light," or "glories," within each of these "worlds." Perhaps I will explore this interplay more in-depth in posts to follow, though I would also be pleased to learn the thoughts of others on this specific subject.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

HiJolly, on 05 March 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

ah...  no...  not in my view.  I see the four worlds as:
Atziluth
Beri'ah
Yetzirah
Assiah
From wikipedia:  "As particular sephirot dominate in each realm, so the primordial fifth World, Adam Kadmon, is often excluded for its transcendence, and the four subsequent Worlds are usually referred to. Their names are read out from Isaiah 43:7, "Every one that is called by My name (Atzilus "Emanation/Close"), and for My glory I have created (Beriah "Creation"), I have formed (Yetzirah "Formation"), even I have made (Asiyah "Action"). Below Asiyah, the lowest spiritual World, is Asiyah-Gashmi ("Physical Asiyah"), our Physical Universe, which enclothes its last two sephirot emanations (Yesod and Malchut).^[3] Collectively, the Four Worlds are also referred to as ABiYA, after their initial letters"
Then again, there are a wide variety of flavors of Kabbalistic teachings.  So, to each his own.  

Wade and Jolly both point to groupings of 4 and identify them as the four worlds. Both are correct.  Jolly is right that if two Kabbalists happen to be discussing the latest baseball game involving [insert local team here] and [insert other team's name here], and somehow the topic of the 4 worlds came up, the assumption is that Atzilut, Briyah, Yetzirah, and Asiya (shortened to ABY''A) are being discussed. But Adam Kadmon, Akudim, Nekudim, Atzilut (or, ABY''A) are often called the "General Atzilus, the General Briyah, the General Yetzirah, and the General Asiyah." I looked at the Chabad.org article that Wade was quoting, and I think a fair reading of the article made the last world Briya, instead of Atzilut. However, I think that the article was not worded clearly. When counting the general worlds, the last world is Atziulut - which includes the other three worlds, or ABY''A.

By the way, that grouping of 4 is also seen in the 4 letters of the Tetragrammaton (sp? I rarely have to write that it English), Yud, Hei, Vov, Hei.

Now at the top of Atzilut (so to speak), is the sefirah Keter. Keter is considered to be partially within the world of Atzilut.That aspect of Keter is called Ratzon or desire (and I frequently translate Keter simply as desire for that reason, even though it literally means crown). It is also considered to be outside of the world of Atzilut. That aspect is called Taanug, or pleasure. (This is the aspect that relates to music, by the way). Taanug is compared to the tip of the Yud (it has a tip when its written in a Torah scroll). Together, with Taanug, the 4 worlds are actually 5 - which are parallel to the 5 levels of the soul: Yechidah, Chaya, Neshama, Ruach, Nefesh.

These 5 levels are also compared to the 5 partzufim. A Partzuf literally means forms of visages (but, for the sake of all of the Mormons that enjoy drawing parallels, I've also seen it rendered "Personages"). It refers to a full system of 10 sefirot within a world. So the partzuf of Aba (father) is parallel to the sefirah of Chochma (wisdom); the partzuf of Ima (mother) is parallel to the sefirah of Binah (intelligence); the partzuf of Zeir Anpin (Little faces), which is sometimes called simply Zachar (male, or boy), is parallel to the 6 emotional attributes of Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferes, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod. (I'll offer more explanations about those 6 later), and the partzuf of Nukva (female, or girl) is parellel to the Sefirah of Malchut (majesty - but related to the faculty of speech). On top of them all is the partzuf of Arich Anpin (long faces), which is parallel to ratzon/keter or desire. (Here's a joke: What did Aba say to Arich Anpin? .......why the long face? Ba dum bum).

What do all of these things mean?

Well, thankfully, you have the entire Zohar by Rabbi Shimon and his students - as redacted by Rabbi Moshe de Leon, the entire book of Eitz Chaim, all of Sefer Yetzirah by Abraham our Patriarch, Pardes Rimonim by Rabbi Cordovero, and basically every other book on Kabbalah that's ever been written. So thanks for throwing me all of the softballs.

The short answer is: you're both right.

The long answer is that they have to do with the development of maturity both specifically (that is, personally), and globally. The first thing a person must perfect is his action. This requires rules to be put in place to prevent bad acts - and does not concern itself with the cause of those bad acts.  The second thing a person must perfect is his emotions, the Zeir Anpin of a person.  This includes emotional associations with art, music, etc. The practical way this is accomplished is that the student goes to a Yeshiva or school, and must separate himself from the world during that time so that he can perfect his associations to a point where they no longer are unhealthy or worldly. This doesn't mean shutting out the world entirely. But it does mean shutting out much of the world for an extremely limited period of time. The next thing a person must fix is his logic, and his rational sense.  Even if he has the right idea about what to accomplish, he still needs to be sure that his method of accomplishing it is effective and does not suffer from the law of unintended consequences. Finally, he has to perfect his wisdom - which really means his vision - so that his image of what he truly wants is correct. This way, he best approximates his Keter - his true desire. Then, he must reintegrate this desire, and this vision, into his life on every level - so that he does not have to live with blinders or oppressive rules in order to function properly.  

This integration process is then top down, from Keter/Arich to Aba/Chochma, Ima/Binah, into the emotions, Zeir Anpin (called Z''A), and Nukvah/Malchut (Z''A and Malchut are further shortened to Zu''N (short for Zachar u'Nekeivah, boy and girl).

That personal process mirrors the creation of the world, and the steps the world must go through before the revelation of the Messiah.
--
From a top to bottom perspective, G-d's very desire to create the world (Keter) actually accomplishes the creation of the world ("Everything he desires, he does" seamlessly). The statement, I want to be a King ("Ana Emloch") caused an establishment of the desire in an articuable manner. (So says the Zohar: Through the first desire of the King, an engraving was made in the supernal purity." Engraving means Malchut - so you now have everything from Keter to Malchut, highest to lowest, in its primordial state). The world is that articulation.  Between the "Ana Emloch" and how we got to our present situation, one day away from knowing whether Rick Santorum can get enough delegates in Super Tuesday to stop Mitt Romney from waltzing into the Republican convention, there is room to fill several large libraries - with books on Physics, Astronomy, Philosophy, Law, and even (actually, mostly) Kabbalah.

The difference between the general worlds and the specific worlds is that the general worlds refer to the process leading up to creation, while the world specific worlds ABY''A are the actual created world (so to speak).  But the created world not just mirrors, but actually reveals, the process that led to the creation.

For example: The steps from wanting something to getting it. 1. Start with a statement of principle: I want something yummy (good principles! I've used this parable before, on this forum, by the way). 2. Create an image of that desire. 3. Suggest practical ways to accomplish #2. (Now, at this point, there may be an ebb and flow between 2 and 3.  You might say "Well, I want a Gigantic Root Beer Float and Howard Johnson, only for Logic (Binah) to send back the message: HoJo no longer operates in Salt Lake City [I'm using Salt Lake City as an example because I bet statistically, more of you are familiar with Salt Lake City than New York - I have no idea if HoJo was ever open in Salt Lake City]. So Binah might suggest: just go to Starbucks and get a Red Zinger tea (no caffeine).  Then #2, Chochma, says "that's logical and practical because there is a Starbucks down the street from me, but I don't really want a Red Zinger tea. Finally, you settle on Ice Cream).  4. Ascertain how to accomplish this. (This may involve reaching into your pocket. If you find money there, you're halfway to your goal. If you don't find money there, either locate a parent or friend who can help, or get a job. This may involve several years of college, including incurring significant education related debts. Asi es la vida.) 5. Get, and eat, the ice cream. Now you've come full circle, with 1-5 corresponding to the partzufim of Arich Anpin to Nukvah.

This mirrors G-d's process of creating the world. 0. The essence of G-d, which is higher than any image, logic, or reason. 1. The desire be king expressed as "Ana Emloch," being the "First will of the King (ie, to be king)" Zohar, Bereishit), and the image of G-d's desire, from top to bottom - completely perfect, and no blemishes. (Adam Kadmon). 2.  The idea that the accomplishment of that vision is accomplished through the creation of a world, containing 10 sefirot (Akudim).  3. The form that world takes, through the sefirot. (Nekudim) This is the first time that any articulation of this world in which we live is made: through the limitation of the world to 10 sefirot.

(Now what happens here, however, is that between us and G-d's desire stands a perception gap known as "Shvirat haKelim" or the Shattering of the Vessels.  The vessels are the 7 lower sefirot of Nekudim (also sometimes referred to as Tohu). In our lives, we can understand Tohu as a disconnect between the essential desire and its realization. Its when a perverse result issues due to the law of unintended consequences.  For ex. 1. I want to make money so that I can relax. 2. I'll get a job. 3. My job keeps me at work for over 60 hours per week. 4. I better work harder so I can get a promotion.)

Finally, 4. G-d creates the world. ABY''A.

The translation between general and specific is not entirely seamless in large part because before the "creation" there is no time. So it becomes hard to talk about something happening before something else.  Shvirat haKelim doesn't really happen before the creation of the world (in fact, it is talked about in the Torah as occurring during the creation... the world was "Tohu and Bohu.") What it means is that within creation, these 4 realities stand in a hierarchy: There's G-d's ultimate purpose, and then there's us. We are told what to do in the Torah so as not to totally mess up. But ultimately, the perfection of our purpose must come through a maturity that infuses all of the partzufim (ie, our partzufim, individually), rather than through strict adherence to the rules. (And sometimes, maturity means greater adherence to the rules.  Avoiding a drunk driving charge seems like an onerous acceptance of "rules" for a teenager, until, G-d forbid, a friend of his is killed by a drunk driver or while driving under the influence himself. After that maturing realization, the government could abolish all DUI laws and it would not impact a mature individual's behavior in the least. It isn't just the law - its reality).

I hope to be able to clarify all of this as time goes on.  My experience is that the more you read about it, the clearer it becomes. So there's value in trying to figure out this terminology, even if it doesn't quite come together all that quickly.
--
I still owe some explanations of what is Kabbalah (I'm explaining that by showing, but I'll try to come up with something systematic that can be quoted in lieu of these strange explanations), and Hassidism.  I don't have the foggiest idea what Rosecrucianism is. So all of that was a learning experience for me.

Edited by DubaDNura, 05 March 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[DubaDNura]

On the subject of music, and since some folks have already cited chabad.org: if you want to know what Taanug (pleasure) feels like, try this out: Kremenchuger Berelach.

Also, don't think that I've missed the (coincidental?) parallel between Briyah, Yetzirah, Asiayah and Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestrial. Note that the lowest world of the 4 worlds is our physical world, not hell/gehinnom, which is actually a higher world. (Give me some time, and I'll explain that. But not right now).   In one sense, the 3 worlds from Briyah down, (called BY''A, oftentimes), really are the created world. Atzilus is often considered to be higher than creation (just like Adam Kadmon is really higher than any notion of worlds, that really begins, as it were, in Akudim).

Edited by DubaDNura, 05 March 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[HiJolly]

Thanks for your comments, DubaDNura.

http://www.chabad.or...ALA-QABALAH.htm

Christians, mystics, Hermetics, occultists, magickians and Western Mystery acolytes all have their own interpretations and teachings on Kabbalah, so be ready for a lot of differing views on various things.

The Berg's Kabbalah Centre (who taught Madonna) are often looked down on by more purist Kabbalists.  It would probably help if they weren't selling red-thread bracelets and such.  But that's only scratching the surface.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, on 05 March 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Fascinating guy.  I actually gave up philosophy in an academic sense because I was convinced there were no more problems to be "solved".   Oh yes, there are the final "proofs" that he is right- but all of deconstruction and most of contemp. philosophy in my view is working out the details of his understanding of language.

He was arguably "religious" but not in an organized spiritual sense.   Yet it is clear that he was ultimately a mystic- perhaps not in a religious sense.

Just thought I'd add this- if anyone is interested in actually reading some Wittgenstein, I have two things to keep in mind.

1- I would not recommend the Tractatus if you are looking for looking for the point of view being discussed in this thread- after writing the Tractatus with Russell, Wittgenstein repudiated his position and completely changed his philosophical point of view in his later writings.   Of course a bit of his earlier views come through in his later writings, but for the most part, they are quite different.   I would recommend Philosophical Investigations and the Blue and Brown Books if you are interested in exploring the views which are represented here.

2- Beginners often have a problem reading later Wittgenstein because they are looking for a philosophical treatise on a subject, the way ordinary philosophers write.   Wittgenstein doesn't write that way.   Think of Wittgenstein as a "clear thinking therapist".  He uses examples to teach the method to clear thinking.   What he talks about is how we use language, and in so doing, we build our own conclusions about the nature of language.

It is more of a Socratic method and I suspect that method of teaching probably parallels Rabbinic practices, though I really don't know if that is correct or not.  In a sense he is speaking in parables, but his subject is the structure and limits of linguistic usage itself.

So a beginner will be looking for "answers" in his writings- they want a declarative sentence saying "I think language does such and such" and they don't find it, and so they do not understand what is being said.

You just have to read him and let him lead you to the conclusion he wants you to have.   For that reason, his books are highly persuasive and actually can be life-changing, because, like Mormonism, once you "get" what it is all about, you just kind of surrender to the common sense of it all.

I am sure the critics will get a kick out of that last sentence, but the believers will understand instantly what I mean.  

[volgadon]

DubaDNura, on 05 March 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Some quick comments:

1. Translations of Rebbe Nachman: There are translations of his work, Likutei Mohara''n that also contain fairly good comments and explanations.  I have not looked at them in depth, though, so I can't vouch for them - other than to say that people who I trust have told me they are good.

Haven't read this translation yet. but might as well post the link.

http://hebrewbooks.o...439&st=&pgnum=2

[mfbukowski]

For what it's worth- I just posted this on another thread so I thought I'd post in here.

It's Leonard Susskind, the originator of string theory commenting on the fact that language is inadequate to describe ultimate reality.

I think we have a theme developing here  

http://www.peterbyrn...d0711Byrn3p.pdf

[volgadon]

mfbukowski, on 05 March 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

For what it's worth- I just posted this on another thread so I thought I'd post in here.

It's Leonard Susskind, the originator of string theory commenting on the fact that language is inadequate to describe ultimate reality.

I think we have a theme developing here  

http://www.peterbyrn...d0711Byrn3p.pdf

Kevin Christiansen must have gotten to him. =)

[SamIam]

I seldom participate but at the urging of a friend who knows of my interest in things Jewish and of things Kabbalah he noted this thread and suggested it to me. When I encounter LDS with some knowledge of Kabbalah and or some experience with the manner of prophecy amongst the Jews, upon which Kabbalah depends,  we tend to talk in terms of definitions and what it is and what it is not but I have not met individuals that actually try to use it as a manner of interpreting scripture.  I find that the, or at least a, foundational issue is that we think after western training but are not particularly adept at thinking mystically precisely because of the western thinking paradigm.  So it seems to me we simply become morphed western thinkers using Kabbalah terminologies without embracing the entire paradigm shift that is to think after the manner of the Jews. Thus, at least for my observations most that I have encountered do not make very good kabbalah style thinkers - just western thinkers with a Kabballah vocabulary. I'm speaking to mostly about LDS intellectuals as individuals and not this audience as a whole.


That said, what I am wondering is can you give some insight as to how you made the assumptions of God the father being the Sun, while the moon represents Christ.  I see your reasoning prior to that point and it is okay for the time being as I have little to provide boundaries for where my reasoning is permitted to travel.  LDS theology only barely comes close to an insinuation of Ein Sof which seems better defined in Kabbalah than any comparable LDS theology  and I believe that to be where you are pointing in the opening of your analysis.  You may direct me to something that changes that opinion but to date I have only noted loosely compatible ideas. So, for me, without a balancing standard that I have identified in LDS theology it leaves much more room for all of us to discuss within the constraints of loosely confined speculations. And without that standard we can all explain it in reasonable terms and it is just as acceptable one person's conclusion versus another.


However, within both theologies there is a more consistent pattern for assignment of feminine and masculine traits and how they relate to each other.  In LDS theology we have Joseph Smith quotes and Book of Moses references that provide gender assignment to the celestial orbs and it seems different than the choices you have selected. Also in Kabbalah the dualism of male and female as incomplete  parts to an ultimate whole, such as in the 10 sefirot seems to favor more to the distinctions of a male and female balance even in the assignment of gender to the celestial orbs.  I would be happy to provide more specificity but thought I would just open with trying to understand your perspective more clearly and then see where this goes from there.

Thank you

[mfbukowski]

HiJolly, on 05 March 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Kerry Shirts could do it in his spare time...  

HiJolly

Thanks- good idea.