05 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdDangers -it's OK🙂
[b]For I see each Way under the auspice of the divine name that it rules solely its sephirothic interpretation; thus it seems to me that we cannot mix the methods of the awakening of our consiousness, although we can apply to other systems in order to become able to use da'at effectively.
I actually think we can. 🙂
In fact, some of us must. The ...[text shortened]... But one will not hear me say “Follow me”!
I think you are right: da’at is the key.[/b]
Feel free to follow yourself; there are other worlds afterall😵
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetleThis is very difficult. I want to think a bit, allow my words to form a bit…
No created creature can get into qeter, for the agent of its consiousness is the field of the formations. But when my consiousness rises beyond the borders of my thoughts, it gains some fractals of the Lux Interna; and then I Know myself as it is
It is my knowledge that, when I act within the sphere of the beautiful naked woman, it is haniel who acts ...[text shortened]... of this mental force, whilst the plexus of absolute mind represents the shape that it takes
_____________________________________
An aside—
I was thinking of something else, though: so many mysticisms seem to seek escape from assiyah—or escape from maya. Zen does not; the Taoism of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu does not; QBLH should not. Akiva may be the model here: the bodhisattva model, the one who, moving beyond, always returns to “this world of red dust” (Han Shan). The Baal Shem Tov is also a good model.
“Before satori, chop wood, carry water; after satori, chop wood, carry water.”
I sit at the keyboard; I smoke my pipe and drink my tea; outside it is cold and damp; there is a fire in the woodstove; I need to bring in some more wood, do chores—the world of assiyah is not less “spiritual” (a word I actually dislike) than any other. Each interpenetrates all; all interpenetrate each. sarvon khalvidam brahma: “Verily, all this is Brahman.” But Brahman is also all this.
Perhaps the single best work on kabbalah by a modern author that I know of is Honey From The Rock, by Lawrence Kushner. It is not a book “about” kabbalah, but a book of kabalah. It is a small and deceptively simple, “homespun” book, with very little use of the “technical” terms that we are using here. The first time I read it, I was a bit disappointed. But it has all that is needed, and is a good book to “ground” with from time to time…
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetleYes, I have valued your reminder of that (which I have needed). 🙂
Dangers -it's OK🙂
Feel free to follow yourself; there are other worlds afterall😵
By dangers I meant that the one who pursues a single Way can be seduced into dogmatic formalism; a nomad like myself can be seduced into a superficial dilettantism.
Two of my favorite quotes by Rebbe Nachman:
“Know! One passes through this life on a very narrow bridge. And the most important thing is—not to be afraid at all!”
“Joy is not merely incidental to the spiritual journey—it is essential to the spiritual journey.”
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdThis is fine; yes, there is really nothing from which one has to escape
This is very difficult. I want to think a bit, allow my words to form a bit…
_____________________________________
An aside—
I was thinking of something else, though: so many mysticisms seem to seek escape from assiyah—or escape from maya. Zen does not; the Taoism of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu does not; QBLH should not. Akiva may be the model here: ...[text shortened]... ppointed. But it has all that is needed, and is a good book to “ground” with from time to time…
but there are too many concepts I have to understand
at each level of my consiousness, that is😵
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdHow nice
Yes, I have valued your reminder of that (which I have needed). 🙂
By dangers I meant that the one who pursues a single Way can be seduced into dogmatic formalism; a nomad like myself can be seduced into a superficial dilettantism.
Two of my favorite quotes by Rebbe Nachman:
“Know! One passes through this life on a very narrow bridge. And the ...[text shortened]... Joy is not merely incidental to the spiritual journey—it is essential to the spiritual journey.”
when I walk
and when I sit😵
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetlebut there are too many concepts I have to understand
This is fine; yes, there is really nothing from which one has to escape
but there are too many concepts I have to understand
at each level of my consiousness, that is😵
at each level of my consiousness, that is
My “problem” also, this. But the spareness of Zen is just one aesthetic; the many-layered tapestry of QBLH is another. I, for example, cannot read music—but, even to improvise on my flute, I have to learn how to finger the holes to produce the notes. Perhaps it is all not so much a journey as an exploration…
Just a quick return to this—
In qeter there is no emanation
I don’t think kabbalists are univocal on this point. Some would agree with you here; others would say that emanation has already begun, both with and within keter. I have adopted the latter, not as the “right answer”, but as just a way of looking at the rhythm/pressure. I have seen keter called eheyeh asher eheyeh, and “riffed” off that…
05 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleIt is my knowledge that, when I act within the sphere of the beautiful naked woman, it is haniel who acts through me for the fulfillment of his mission…
No created creature can get into qeter, for the agent of its consiousness is the field of the formations. But when my consiousness rises beyond the borders of my thoughts, it gains some fractals of the Lux Interna; and then I Know myself as it is
It is my knowledge that, when I act within the sphere of the beautiful naked woman, it is haniel who acts of this mental force, whilst the plexus of absolute mind represents the shape that it takes
I do not say that any of this is incorrect, so far as it goes. But—
Ein Sof emanates, creates, forms and actualizes.* Nevertheless, it is all emanation.
But there is a strange thing: I have before called it a “self-looping”, a kind of recursion in the emanation. But you have helped me here to clarify it—at least for myself…
It is as if the pressure reverberates on itself. And this reverberation engenders sentience/consciousness/self-reflective consciousness within, through, from the manifestations (e.g., us).
And here I can only speak in paradox: we are both determined and determining agents. We are both acted upon and through; and we act. We are both responsive and responsible beings. We are moved by the pressure, but—because of that recursive reverberation—we also move. We are never “marionettes” of the pressure.
You remember when I was wondering about the notion of “covenant” in the context of nondualism? You gave me a shove in the right direction. 😉 The secret is in that recursive reverberation. That is what distinguishes QBLH from some other ways. It is the dialectical synthesis between the unio mystica on the one hand, and Buber’s I-Thou on the other.
In that recursive reverberation is the “covenant”!
In that recursive reverberation is the way of the tzaddik, as distinguished from some other mystical understandings. That recursion is the crucible in which the tzaddik stands—well, we all stand there, but the tzaddik realizes it. (I am speaking of the tzaddik as mystic here, not simply the more conventional usage as a just or righteous individual.)
Now tzaddik is another name for the sefirah yesod. This should not be taken literally, but as indicative.
[Yesod (and I depart from much of classical kabbalah a bit here) is—in the assiyah of your body—the hara, the dantien, the crucible of gathered, harmonized (hopefully!) power, guided by tiferet and da’at—in Tai Chi, these are sometimes called the upper, lower and middle dantiens; but often just the hara is called dantien. Your body is also a “map” of the tree, as it is superimposed on adam qadmon; the human archetype, so to speak.]
The power/pressure is channeled through yesod, and malchut is actualized. Because the tzaddik stands in the crucible, s/he knows that s/he is not only responsive to the flow, but responsible for guiding it—not only guided by the pressure, but also guiding. Not merely determined, but also determining—decisive. Sparks will be set free, or not. Shekhinah…well, that mystery is still veiled to me…
In that crucible of recursive reverberation is the secret of the mitzvah: “Be holy.”**
Paradox, yes; metaphor, yes. But the “crucible” is real and daunting: the vibrations can crush you or rip you apart, drive you mad. And—paradoxically, perhaps, again—the trick is to…relax; do not add tension. And the secret is: “not to be afraid at all.”***
__________________________________________________
* In Lurianic Kabbalah, ein sof first “contracts” (the tzimtzum), in order to make “space” (the language is highly metaphorical) in which to emanate the Or Ein Sof.
** This is a different kind of holiness from that which Bodhidharma was negating; they are not in contradiction, they are just different—different usages in different domains of discourse.
*** The Kabbalists seem to have more “the secret”(s) than Luther had solas!
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdFor sure we are not just puppets -it is my broken English again;
This conversation is itself a kind of meditation. Thanks for driving me deeper...
I 'll try to become understood with another take; the ancient question is:
-- "Do you believe in gods?"
If I reply "yes" I will keep up drifting into the worlds of delusion, for "gods" are not "real personalities" as we understand the "real personalities". And if I reply "no" I will keep up coming back at the gate of the materialistic formations, for "gods" are not a delusion. Therefore, intuition is the agent that offers the right reply:
-- "No human thought ever pushed the gods to love and to honour"
So now everything is quite clear between your mind and my mind;
Even our dear friend, Fabian Fnas, could be able to take a trip with us thanks to that smiling Schroedinger's Cat😵
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdEdit:
[b]but there are too many concepts I have to understand
at each level of my consiousness, that is
My “problem” also, this. But the spareness of Zen is just one aesthetic; the many-layered tapestry of QBLH is another. I, for example, cannot read music—but, even to improvise on my flute, I have to learn how to finger the holes to produce the notes. ...[text shortened]... he rhythm/pressure. I have seen keter called eheyeh asher eheyeh, and “riffed” off that…[/b]
In qeter there is no emanation
I don’t think kabbalists are univocal on this point. Some would agree with you here; others would say that emanation has already begun, both with and within keter. I have adopted the latter, not as the “right answer”, but as just a way of looking at the rhythm/pressure. I have seen keter called eheyeh asher eheyeh, and “riffed” off that…
===
The "emanation" has already begun there, but maybe I should remind the good ole scientist who insisted that whatever happened (if any...) before the point singularity is unconceivable and anyway meaningless (Fabian Fnas could help us over here regarding the exact quotation and its scientific meaning)
it seems to me that, if the individual tries to brake the barriers of her/ his consiousness in front of qeter, s/he will get stranded, blocked eternally in the delusion of dualism; definately I prefer to avoid this stream
😵
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdExploration is the word allright
[b]but there are too many concepts I have to understand
at each level of my consiousness, that is
My “problem” also, this. But the spareness of Zen is just one aesthetic; the many-layered tapestry of QBLH is another. I, for example, cannot read music—but, even to improvise on my flute, I have to learn how to finger the holes to produce the notes. ...[text shortened]... he rhythm/pressure. I have seen keter called eheyeh asher eheyeh, and “riffed” off that…[/b]
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetleYour English is very good! My fault here: sometimes I “spin sideways” off something you say, contemplating it from another angle. I should have been more clear.
For sure we are not just puppets -it is my broken English again;
I 'll try to become understood with another take; the ancient question is:
-- "Do you believe in gods?"
If I reply "yes" I will keep up drifting into the worlds of delusion, for "gods" are not "real personalities" as we understand the "real personalities". And if I reply "no" I will k ...[text shortened]... uld be able to take a trip with us thanks to that smiling Schroedinger's Cat😵
Something went “click”—and I had to explore it; the language of “pressure” helped—led me to the metaphor of the “crucible of recursive reverberation”. Things were getting clear (to me) as I wrote them. Now I have to let it simmer…
Even our dear friend, Fabian Fnas, could be able to take a trip with us thanks to that smiling Schroedinger's Cat
LOL! Wonderful!
05 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleI wonder if that's where Aher got caught...
Edit:
In qeter there is no emanation
I don’t think kabbalists are univocal on this point. Some would agree with you here; others would say that emanation has already begun, both with and within keter. I have adopted the latter, not as the “right answer”, but as just a way of looking at the rhythm/pressure. I have seen keter called eheyeh asher ehey , blocked eternally in the delusion of dualism; definately I prefer to avoid this stream
😵
_____________________________________
I really do need to let it simmer now for awhile; you drove me deep enough that I'll get "the bends" if I try to come up too soon... 😉