[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Main Index][Thread Index]

# Re: Soul mirrors/desires

#### Message 02095 of 3835

- To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: Soul mirrors/desires
- From: "Martin" <martin@...>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:31:48 -0000
- In-reply-to: <004801c3d32d$bfb512d0$c1a17fd8@ownerbqacdlzy6>
- User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82

    Dear Rawn,

    Firstly allow me to apologize for not replying to your reply sooner.
    Since you posted it, I have read it several times, but wanted to
    wait until I had enough time to really consider what you had written
    and try to understand it before replying.

    I must admit that this plan has failed somewhat, as I still do not
    understand a lot of what you wrote. I do, however, appreciate you
    having taken the time to reply in such detail and attempt to walk me
    through the concepts so patiently.

    > These quotes actually agree with the intent of Bardon's character
    > transformation and Hermetic initiation in general. However, their
    > Kabbalistic, and therefore Jewish, phrasing makes this connection
    a bit
    > hard to see unless you're already familiar with such texts and
    their
    > translation into Hermetese. :) Plus, they are focused
    exclusively upon
    > our desires and not the broader subject of *character*
    transformation
    > which concerns more than just our manifest desires specifically.
    > Although, an examination of our desires is a quintessential part
    of the
    > character transformation and Soul Mirror process.

    Right, I think I understand this part... I was becoming confused
    because some of things I read led me to believe that all character
    traits emanate from some sort of desire (be it positive or negative
    in nature).

    >
    > >> "Selfishness, which separates our perception from true
    knowledge, can
    > only be found in man. <<
    >
    > Here, R. Laitman has defined at least two forms of "selfishness" -
    - the
    > kind that "separates our perception from true knowledge" and those
    kinds
    > of selfishness which do not separate us. Note that he attributes
    only
    > the form of selfishness that separates us, to "man". The other
    forms of
    > selfishness which bring our perceptions *to* true knowledge,
    instead of
    > separating us from it, are also attributed to "man", the Creator
    and to
    > all else.

    Although I understand the initial distinction here, I cannot grasp
    the idea beneath the concept of 'good' forms selfishness which
    brings us to true knowledge. Does this mean looking inward at
    oneself, studying one's character, meditating upon how one is linked
    to the Macrocosm?

    > >> This is not the case with the Creator because perfection and
    openness
    > define his relation to man. The absence of the Creator is only
    felt by a
    > man who dissimulates the worlds from himself, as if he were hiding
    > behind the veils of his own selfishness. <<
    >
    > This is such a well put and wonderful statement! :) It is very
    subtle
    > and really contains volumes of Kabbalistic philosophy!
    >
    > What he's just said is that the Creator and "man" are not
    separate. The
    > *absence* of the Creator is only *felt* -- in other words, this
    feeling
    > of absence and separation is something created wholly by the
    individual
    > who turns away from the Divine Immanence and focuses upon their
    > self-centered desires. It is a self-delusion or blindness caused
    simply
    > by not putting the focus in the right place.

    OK, I think I understand that. The Creator and Man are one, it is
    simply an individual's perception which can led to a sense of
    distance from the Creator. Is that correct?

    >
    > >> In the beginning, the Creator grants man periods of time
    > corresponding to lives in this world as an opportunity to elevate
    > himself spiritually. Man is master of the whole process. During
    each of
    > his consecutive lives, man must remove a certain part of his
    selfish
    > nature and draw himself closer to the Creator. Man will repeat a
    new
    > life as long as he does not correct himself. <<
    >
    > Here, R. Laitman defines what he really means by "remove". What he
    > describes is a process of *transformation* through reincarnation.
    This
    > process naturally transforms the self-centered
    > 'selfishness-which-separates' and the Individual's attention is
    turned
    > toward receiving and expressing the Divine Immanence.

    Again, I think I can understand that. It makes sense to me
    intuitively and is something I have believed for quite some time.
    >
    > >> Correction means that his desires termed "body" in Kabbalah
    will no
    > longer form a barrier between him and the Creator. <<
    >
    > Okay now, here we're shifting into some deeply complex Kabbalistic
    > ground. By "desires", R. Laitman is no longer referring to the
    > 'selfishness-which-separates'. That category of base desire is not
    > included in the "body" he refers to and which he speaks of further
    below
    > in his discussion of the "613 desires of the soul". Instead,
    the "body"
    > of desires he's speaking of here are of the category of selfishness
    > shared by the Creator and which actually open us to receiving and
    > expressing the Divine Immanence.

    This part went over my head, but that's fine. I'm certainly not
    expecting to be able to comprehend everything at once!
    >
    > >> When this occurs man's attributes will bond him with the Creator
    > regardless of the world in which man finds himself." <<
    >
    > This refers directly to what he says below regarding the difference
    > between the 248 positive desires and the 365 negative desires
    which, in
    > "man", constitute (Kabbalistically speaking) the "body" of desires
    > that fall into the category of selfishness which is shared by the
    > Creator and which opens us to receiving and expressing the Divine
    > Immanence. In other words, in what follows below, he splits some
    very
    > fine hairs in true Kabbalistic fashion and speaks of those desires
    which
    > are more potent in opening us to receiving and expressing the
    Divine
    > Immanence. The other 365 are also good for this but not to the
    same,
    > overwhelmingly positive degree to which the 248 are.
    The "correction"
    > he spoke of earlier is the state in which the Individual, while
    > incarnate, manifests *only* the 248 positive desires. This binds
    the
    > Individual forevermore (i.e., "regardless of the worlds in which
    man
    > finds himself") to the Creator.
    >
    > In Bardonian terms, this would be equivalent to the attainment of
    the
    > astral *and* mental Equilibrium of the Elements.
    >
    > >> "The 613 desires of the soul are divided into 248 positive
    desires,
    > through which man can acquire a "li chema" intention, and 365
    negative
    > desires man cannot use in order to gain a "li chema" intent. <<
    >
    > Okay, this sequence has to be examined very closely. The only
    > difference between these desires is whether or not their
    expression is
    > capable eliciting the "li chema" intention. 248 you can use to
    attain
    > it and 365 are unsuitable. This however does not mean they have no
    > value, it's just their relative degree of value that's under
    discussion
    > here.
    >
    > >> The difference between the two desires has nothing to do with
    > intention. In both cases the intention is naturally and exclusively
    > "turned toward the Creator". <<
    >
    > As I said earlier, these "desires" are *not* what he was speaking
    of at
    > the very beginning as the 'selfishness-which-separates'. These
    > "desires" that we're speaking of here, fall into the category of
    those
    > shared by the Creator and which open us to the receiving and
    expressing
    > of the Divine Immanence.
    >
    > >> The difference lies in the power of the desire itself: if the
    desire
    > is weak it will not awaken intense pleasure. <<
    >
    > In other words, the 365 "negative" desires are *weak* and do not
    elicit
    > the intense pleasure of the "li Chema".
    >
    > >> However, this desire enables one to feel the bond with the
    Creator.
    > <<
    >
    > Which means that expression of the 365 "negative" desires does
    have its
    > value; namely that it opens one to "feel the bond with the
    Creator".
    > This could easily be equated with the *astral* Equilibrium of the
    > Elements. One has left behind the selfishness-which-separates and
    has
    > focused upon the metaphorical 365 desires which are "turned toward
    the
    > Creator".
    >
    > But this is a much lesser value than that attained through pursuit
    of
    > the 248 "positive" desires and, in Bardonian equivalences,
    attainment of
    > the *mental* Equilibrium of the Elements.
    >
    > >> The pleasure sensed is called the pleasure to give without
    > restraint. That is to say the desire to please the Creator as it
    is only
    > possible to please Him by receiving from him. But since this desire
    > cannot be felt with sufficient intensity, it cannot truly give to
    the
    > Creator. This desire exists only at the level of equivalence of
    form
    > with the Creator. <<
    >
    > This is the meat of the mystical Beauty of Kabbalistic philosophy
    that I
    > find so enchanting. :) Although this is couched in reference to
    the
    > lesser power of the 365 desires, it's really a commentary upon what
    > makes the 248 "positive" desires so powerful.
    >
    > At their root, all 613 desires are expressions of the desire to
    *give
    > without restraint*. Expression of the 365 "negative" or weak
    desires
    > allow one to only *feel from afar*, as it were, the *intense
    pleasure*
    > of *giving* to the Creator in sufficient degree that the *giving*
    match
    > one's capacity to *receive without restraint* in equal measure. In
    > other words, our gift to the Creator in our reciprocal
    relationship, is
    > our capacity to receive and express the Divine Immanence. The 365
    > "negative" desires are too weak in their degree of acceptance to
    fully
    > express the fullness of the Creator within the temporal moment.
    > Nonetheless they do express the Divine Immanence to a pleasing
    degree.
    >
    > But only expression of the 248 can bring the Individual up to the
    level
    > of *equality* with the Divine Immanence in which there is infinite
    > receiving without restraint and infinite giving without restraint.
    >
    > >> All desires born in man are selfish desires. This is the desire
    to
    > receive for one's own pleasure. Only the intention "turned toward
    the
    > Creator" will transform it into an altruistic desire. Hence the
    > difference solely lies in the intent. <<
    >
    > Here he concludes with a bit of instruction on how to *transform*
    the
    > self-centered desires that typify the 'selfishness-which-separates'
    > mentioned at the beginning (i.e., "desires born IN man"), into the
    613
    > *altruistic* desires mentioned just above which open us to the
    receiving
    > and expressing of the Divine Immanence. Namely, by "turning them
    toward
    > the Creator" or, in Bardonian terms, through the Soul Mirror
    process of
    > character transformation.
    >
    > >> That's what makes Kabbalah so important. It helps us transform
    our
    > intent. The intention "turned toward the Creator" is
    called "screen"
    > because it prevents one from "receiving for oneself" and generates
    the
    > intention "turned towards the Creator"." <<
    >
    > And here's a wonderful little Kabbalistic explanation of why
    character
    > transformation is such a powerful discipline. :) When we're
    creating
    > our Soul Mirror we are, by necessity, examining our intention
    behind
    > every part of who we are. And then with the transformative work
    we are
    > reshaping the intention and thus its ultimate expression. Once
    this new
    > habit of examining, shaping and directing one's intention takes
    hold,
    > then an internal resistance (or "screen") arises against
    fulfilling the
    > old habit of "receiving for oneself". So one's attention is always
    > directed "toward the Creator" and the desire to "receive for
    oneself" is
    > diminished and disempowered -- it's former energy is transmuted
    into and
    > diverted toward the new habit.
    >
    > PS: If you read up on the 613 desires which compose the "body",
    please
    > understand that they are, from a Kabbalistic perspective, VERY deep
    > statements that cannot be taken at their *surface* value. It's
    nearly
    > impossible to really penetrate the layers of their meaning when
    they're
    > read in translation.

    OK, wow... now my head is hurting. I do understand the concept of
    the "screen" and how it relates to character transformation, but as
    for the complex issue of desires, I think I'll let it dawn on me
    as/when I am ready :-)

    I do have another question concerning the Tree of Life and how it
    might link with IIH.

    In "The Mystical Qabalah", Dion Fortune writes:

    "The ritual initiations of the Greater Mysteries of the Western
    Esoteric Tradition are based upon the principles of the Tree of
    Life. Each grade corresponds to a Sephirah and confers, or should
    confer, if the Order working them is worthy of the name, the powers
    of that sphere of nature. Likewise it opens up the Paths leading to
    that Sephirah, so that the initiate is said to be Lord of the Thirty-
    second Path when he has taken the initiation that corresponds to
    Yesod..."

    This made me wonder if the ten steps of IIH correspond with the ten
    Sephiroth of the Tree of Life. If so, do we count Malkuth as
    corresponding with step one? Or as we are already manifest in the
    physical, does it connect instead with Yesod? In which case, would
    Daath correspond to step seven? Or is there absolutely no link at
    all?

    Thank you,

    Martin

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: Re: Soul mirrors/desires
    - From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>

- References:
  - Re: Re: Soul mirrors/desires
    - From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>

- Prev by Date: Frabato french forum, new address
- Next by Date: Re: Frabato french forum, new address
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Soul mirrors/desires
- Next by thread: Re: Re: Soul mirrors/desires
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index