Who blew up Mumbai?

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "I am still exploring how that whole notion can play out within a non-dualistic framework such as mine, and the various non-dualistic expressions found in Judaism. At least at the metaphorical/allegorical level it can probably play fairly non-problematically."

It can, for the ultimate existence is pure Pressure deriving from ain soph aur penetrating all the tree; one has to evakuate all the time

Of course: relationalism (such as a covenant relationship) is intrinsic to the expression of the tree below keter (and even there, in a subtle sense, else keter could not really be called a s’ferot). But that takes place aginst the backdrop of non-separability—everything is interpenetrated by the aur ein sof: “they are it, and it is they” (Cordovero, I think). The balance (da’at, tiferet, yesod) is dynamic, ever moving, like the steps of tai chi—and just as in tai chi, one is never double-weighted except at the opening and the close, just so for keter and malkhut: the opening and the closing, each is each.

Everything emanates from that in which everything is absorbed, and the whole existential dance (of yesh and ayin) is in, from and of that.

But, as I study that other piece you posted to me, I see that talk of “figure/manifestation” and “ground”—though at times helpful—can still be a kind of dualism. “They are it, and it is they.” A mysticism that claims that “they” are not actual (in my terminology, that “they” are in fact delusion, as opposed to illusion that is ours) is as much illusion (on the right-hand side?) as is conventional dualism (on the left side?).

But, to understand it (binah) is not enough: hochmah and binah must be harmonized in da’at (I am speaking in terms of the microsomic, human level here; I am speaking in terms of the tree expressed within my own being) if one is to consciously harmonize the six s’ferot within the level of yetzirah, in order to coherently actualize (asiyah) malchut. Otherwise, I wander in tohu v’bohu.

Paradoxically perhaps, one starts by observing malchut: what is going on in one’s own existential affairs. The one can proceed in reverse to, as you say, evaluate. Ascent and descent (the classical terms: I prefer expanding and gathering, opening and deepening, etc.) are continuous.

S’ferot within s’ferot: I start where I can see, where my awareness is present and active. One expands from there as one is able—in fits and starts perhaps, but with more and more capability for expansion. That thought reminds me of something that Nemesio said to me not too long ago; it offers some serenity as the journey unfolds.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Hey there, old man, nice to see you.

Good stuff, you're always full of good information! I confess I do not know which reading is most accurate (whatever that really means in exegetical matters), and I leave that to trusty hands such as yours. As you gathered, my question was in the vein of what you call the most prevalent in Christianity (which I ag ...[text shortened]... I have to think the result is that Abraham failed miserably; and God would know that result.

Hey, old friend.

I do not think any one of those readings can claim "accuracy" over the others. The purpose of midrash is to draw out (d'rash) from the text any and all possible readings. Some of this reflects the structure of the classical Hebrew. Rabbincal hermeneutics generally eschews the notion of a single "accurate" or "right" reading of Torah texts.

A literalist and a historical critic will disagree aboout accuracy; a literary critic will have another view(s); a homilist (such as Kirksey, say) will see something else. There is what one sees as the (original?) purpose of the text [I think trying to decipher the intent of the author, particularly with poets and storytellers, is highly speculative], and what one sees as purposes the text can serve; they may or may not be different. Is Camus' reading of the myth of Sysiphus the only "accurate" one? Or is it a creative possibility that folks such as you and I have found to be helpful ("effective means" as the Buddhists say) in examining our own existential situation?

Although pragmatics and aesthetics may not be epistemically justifying, they are nevertheless a major part of how we live our lives--and ought not to be eschewed, I think, when reading certain stories qua stories.

Originally posted by vistesd
Of course: relationalism (such as a covenant relationship) is intrinsic to the expression of the tree below keter (and even there, in a subtle sense, else keter could not really be called a s’ferot). But that takes place aginst the backdrop of non-separability—everything is interpenetrated by the aur ein sof: “they are it, and it is they” (Cordovero, I th ...[text shortened]... thing that Nemesio said to me not too long ago; it offers some serenity as the journey unfolds.

Opening and closing: not so! malkut is the last receiver of the flash and at the same time is the top over the cliffoths

the "left" and the "right" side, Macrocosmos and Microcosmos, are non dualistic for "they are it, and it is they" thus they are one

You choose to check each time Macrocosmos or Microcosmos and You keep them separated because You are forced to think under this dualistic term, and You are forced to act so because Your Knowledge has nothing to do with da'at

no need to "conciously harmonize", for everything exists due to the Pressure; however You have to use use solely Your distorted knowledge instead of da'at, but this is not enough in order to let You see without effort -through da'at- that the "left" and the "right" side is just a term, and that the tree itself remains a solid entity;

sometimes this offers a serenity and sometimes not; for malkut is the real place of evaluation: dualism derives when You have the delusion that the cliffothic spheres are the opposite of the sefiroth in terms of "good" and "evil". Actually we have to cope with the cliffothic forces in order not to destroy them, but in order to absorb them and to harmonize them with the forces of the sephiroth

so the Pressure moves it from the left" to the "right" eternally, and solely a slightly small period of pure balance evolves from calpa to calpa -Pralaja!
after the cosmic night it starts all over again

and it is unique within its complication

Edit: I see that talk of “figure/manifestation” and “ground”—though at times helpful—can still be a kind of dualism."

"consiously understand" is meaningless

consciousness has no past and no future, it knows solely the present moment; it is a closed system of the continuum of a present moment being transformed into another present moment

Expanding is fine😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Opening and closing: not so! malkut is the last receiver of the flash and at the same time is the top over the cliffoths

the "left" and the "right" side, Macrocosmos and Microcosmos, are non dualistic for "they are it, and it is they" thus they are one

You choose to check each time Macrocosmos or Microcosmos and You keep them separated because You night it starts all over again

and it is unique within its complication

Opening and closing: not so! malkut is the last receiver of the flash and at the same time is the top over the cliffoths

Understood; “opening and closing” are terms taken from the tai chi form. Neither keter nor malkhut are actually “closed”. In keter, however, there is not yet “left-right” sides, there is not yet “yin and yang”; and all flows into malkhut—but there is not one path only.

There is no “last receiver” in truth (there are sefirot in sefirot in sefirot...); nor is the flow unidirectional.

Note: My use of the moments of "opening" and "closing", as moments in the Tai Chi form were really intended to capture the same thing as your moment of "pure balance".

the "left" and the "right" side, Macrocosmos and Microcosmos, are non dualistic for "they are it, and it is they" thus they are one

“Maya, too, is Brahman.” But, the One is expressive (e.g., 1st chapter of Tao Te Ching). All is from in and of the One: non-separability. But the expressions are not to be simply dismissed.

no need to "consciously harmonize", for everything exists due to the Pressure; however You have to use solely Your distorted knowledge instead of da'at, but this is not enough in order to let You see without effort -through da'at- that the "left" and the "right" side is just a term, and that the tree itself remains a solid entity;

Wrong.

(1) Consciousness is expressed first as hochmah-binah-da’at (da’at is not a sefirah: it is tiferet at that “place” ); (2) the Tree is not a solid entity—“tree” itself is a metaphor, but the “tree” is itself a flowing and flashing, pulsating process; (3) nothing is static; (4) everything coheres; but we are the source of “disharmony” when we act illusively—how we act matters. According to some—most?—Kabbalists, it matters all the way up the tree; but it at least affects how things play out at the level of expression/assiyah.

Once one has seen beyond the apparent duality, one still acts in the world of apparent duality: one does not simply see someone fall on the ice, shrug, and say: “Well, that’s just because of the Pressure so nothing to be done!” (Or: “Oh well: karma.” ) You help them up.

Note: the sefirot also model the flow within (or expressed as) the body—analogous to the model of chakras, meridians, etc. Symbols, as you say. Adam Qadmon is the “logos”, so to speak, for the human form.

sometimes this offers a serenity and sometimes not; for malkut is the real place of evaluation: dualism derives when You have the delusion that the cliffothic spheres are the opposite of the sefiroth in terms of "good" and "evil". Actually we have to cope with the cliffothic forces in order not to destroy them, but in order to absorb them and to harmonize them with the forces of the sephiroth

Agreed.

so the Pressure moves it from the left" to the "right" eternally, and solely a slightly small period of pure balance evolves from calpa to calpa -Pralaja!
after the cosmic night it starts all over again

Agreed.

But we, as expressions of the One, are expressed as attentive, aware, conscious beings. There is a looping here in the weave—we are not expressed in the same way as stones, so our expression is not the same as a stone. To borrow again from Taoism: wu wei is not simple passivity (mentally or physically): it is “effortless doing”, where “effortless” just means without strain against the natural flow.

That “slightly small period of pure balance” was what I was trying to get at with the Tai Chi term of “closing”.

and it is unique within its complication

Yes. And complex within its expression(s): currents in the one ocean (see metaphor below) that express within itself many forms...

“The Holy One manifests in a myriad forms;
I sing the glory of the forms...”

—Kabir


_____________________________________________

Question: I have not elsewhere come across the term “pressure” in any source on the QBLH (that I recall); it may just be a translation I’m not familiar with. Can you fill that out a bit?

A metaphor:

In the one ocean, currents arise. Some currents form a kind of hourglass-shaped flow. At the neck of the hourglass, the pressure of the forming currents generates a kind of circular, looping swirl In that swirl (this is just an imaginal metaphor!) is expressed our self-reflective consciousness. Neither the currents nor the forms they generate are separable from the ocean; and they are transient. However, it is as much illusion to deny the expressive currents (or waves that rise and fall, to use another metaphor) as it is to say that they are separable and non-transient. “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Form is also form; and emptiness, emptiness.” (Heart Sutra)

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Opening and closing: not so! malkut is the last receiver of the flash and at the same time is the top over the cliffoths

Understood; “opening and closing” are terms taken from the tai chi form. Neither keter nor malkhut are actually “closed”. In keter, however, there is not yet “left-right” sides, there is not yet “yin and yang”; and all flows ...[text shortened]... s form. Form is also form; and emptiness, emptiness.” (Heart Sutra)[/b]

Fine post!

"opening and closing": the atziluthian malkut gives birth to the qeter of briah etc; inhale, pralaja, exhale. Clear!

surely the expressions are not to be dismissed; however they are just expressions

Regarding consiousness as you pose it:
1. da'at is a sephira but I cannot talk about it
2. I agree that the tree is a symbol; but when I face it the conditions are differant than when I have my back against it, and it is my choise to use the symbol the way it suits more my sight at every given moment. And then (just like Popper poses it at his "Three Words" concept) this symbol can maintain a real existence by means of its real images in the physical world and in myself
3. Pralaja is static!
4. Yes. But when "we" act "It" acts, therefore it is enough to leave "It"
act within us no matter of "our" temprary expression ("be silent, do nothing"😉!

ain soph aur atziluth qeter malkut briah qeter malkut yetzira qeter malkut assiya qeter malkut cliffoth -the Pressure filling everything; I feel balanced on this edge

Originally posted by black beetle
Fine post!

"opening and closing": the atziluthian malkut gives birth to the qeter of briah etc; inhale, pralaja, exhale. Clear!

surely the expressions are not to be dismissed; however they are just expressions

Regarding consiousness as you pose it:
1. da'at is a sephira but I cannot talk about it
2. I agree that the tree is a symbol; but when ...[text shortened]... er malkut cliffoth -the Pressure filling everything; I feel balanced on this edge

Must do some chores here, so will only say that I think we might have just been talking past one another a bit.

Also, our own interpretations of the symbols will certainly differ some (mine are rooted in, but also differ from "classical" QBLH).

Originally posted by vistesd
Must do some chores here, so will only say that I think we might have just been talking past one another a bit.

Also, our own interpretations of the symbols will certainly differ some (mine are rooted in, but also differ from "classical" QBLH).

Sure thing;

What a beautiful naked woman!

Originally posted by black beetle
Fine post!

"opening and closing": the atziluthian malkut gives birth to the qeter of briah etc; inhale, pralaja, exhale. Clear!

surely the expressions are not to be dismissed; however they are just expressions

Regarding consiousness as you pose it:
1. da'at is a sephira but I cannot talk about it
2. I agree that the tree is a symbol; but when ...[text shortened]... er malkut cliffoth -the Pressure filling everything; I feel balanced on this edge

The following is really just a kind of “thinking out loud”, and perhaps all of it should come under the rubric of “in a manner of speaking”...

1. da'at is a sephira but I cannot talk about it

The “classical” kabbalists (and the majority, anyway, today) called da’at the “non-sefirah”.

I suspect they faced a dilemma: they wanted to keep the number of sefirot at 10 (not 11), and wanted to retain keter as a sefirah. I think there may have been a pre-Cordovero, pre-Luria time when some did not view keter as a sefirah proper—and thought of it as the non-sefirah (and keter is also called ayin). Nevertheless, without da’at, something is clearly missing: hochmah (“right brain” function, just as a metaphor) and binah (“left brain” function) are not balanced.

I do not like the “differing aspects of tiferet” solution myself, even though I offered it; after all, that would include yesod as well, whose sefirotic-ness is not disputed.

3. Pralaja is static!

Okay, okay... 😉

But there is a danger if prajala is emphasized too much; some find a dread fascination there, and attempt to (as it were) remain. “Ben Azzai gazed and died.”

The primary symbol is shabbat. It is the 1/7th.

But I did speak wrongly with my overgeneralization.

Here—as in my reply to your 4. below—I am emphasizing what is undoubtedly the “minority” error of illusion; you are, quite properly, emphasizing the majority error, so to speak.

4. Yes. But when "we" act "It" acts, therefore it is enough to leave "It" act within us no matter of "our" temporary expression

Granted. The “majority” error is far and away made in terms of that “our”, and is therefore the one that needs the most pointing-out. It is only as one begins to see through that that the counter-error really raises its head. This (and my comments to 3. above) is partially why I now choose (following some Zennists) to speak of non-dualism rather than of monism.

Jung, I think, wrongly supposed this second error to be at the core of the “eastern” non-dualisms (Vedanta, Buddhism). It is not: it is simply an error.

The One (ein sof) acts (expresses itself) by, through and as the expressions. “They are it”, but—“It is also they.” The process of emanation cannot mask that.

I feel balanced on this edge

“Know! A person walks in life
on a very narrow bridge.
And the most important thing
is not to be afraid at all.”

—Rebbe Nachman

_________________________________________

I sense, at this point, that something is “missing”. How does the tree speak to novelty? To non-linear dynamic shifts, butterfly effects, sudden polar realignments?

In most polytheisms, there is the trickster god. In some, the TG is “evil”, but in many is seen as ultimately “benign”. Without something like the TG, the whole thing is, not static, but humdrum, tick-tock.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by vistesd
The following is really just a kind of “thinking out loud”, and perhaps all of it should come under the rubric of “in a manner of speaking”...

[b]1. da'at is a sephira but I cannot talk about it

The “classical” kabbalists (and the majority, anyway, today) called da’at the “non-sefirah”.

I suspect they faced a dilemma: they wanted to keep the nu ...[text shortened]... ing like the TG, the whole thing is, not static, but humdrum, tick-tock.

Thoughts?[/b]

they do it because it is not visible there on the tree; and it is my knowledge that it is not visible because you have to find it on your own
heading up the path of the arrow

the spirit in the flesh Ben Azai saw thanks to its flesh the death of this body at the horizon at the very moment of its birth; dynamism became instantly stability and it happened in the night of the gods

novelty! the evolution through the path. Your own knowledge is not understood by the one who is not related with this kind of consciousness and in addition you cannot pass it to him with mere words
we use images which they contain not fractals of our own logic
which they cannot on their own hold something more than a glance
and then all of a sudden the idea of yours is born
but it was never Yours actually

Thoughts! The images today are more powerful because the barriers are pushed further on
thanks to our acummulated power
thanks to them all that they respect the children

😵

So Ben Azzai knew -and at the same time knew not- that he will die when he face Him; he was "unprepared" to see the vision/ thus he was "prepared" to die

it seems to me that he was eager to unite with Him, to break the stability of his scheme and to become an existence under aziluthian qeter; but I have no way to Know if Ben Azzai was free at last or if I simply follow Acher's path

Nothing Holy
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
they do it because it is not visible there on the tree; and it is my knowledge that it is not visible because you have to find it on your own
heading up the path of the arrow

the spirit in the flesh Ben Azai saw thanks to its flesh the death of this body at the horizon at the very moment of its birth; dynamism became instantly stability and it happe ...[text shortened]... her on
thanks to our acummulated power
thanks to them all that they respect the children

😵

they do it because it is not visible there on the tree; and it is my knowledge that it is not visible because you have to find it on your own

That’s good; that’s very good! I’m going to “play” with that one for awhile.

I would say that this relates to your words about novelty as well. But first—

__________________________________

There is a Talmudic story: Some rabbis are arguing over an interpretation of Torah. Rabbi Eleazer put forth an interpretation that all the other rabbis disagreed with. R. Eleazer therefore called forth a series of miracles to prove his point—“If I am correct, let this stream run backwards!” etc.—but the others were not impressed. Finally, R. Eleazer cried: “If my Torah is correct, let a voice (echo) from heaven descend and declare it so!” Whereupon a heavenly voice said: “Why are you arguing? The Torah has always meant what Rabbi Eleazer says it does.” At that point, Rabbi Joshua (if I recall correctly) jumped up and shouted, “It is not in heaven!”

Meaning? Torah was given to men to interpret without any heavenly meddling. Later, one of the rabbis died and met Elijah in heaven. He asked Elijah what God’s response was when the rabbis declared, “It is not in heaven”? Elijah said, “The Blessed Holy One just laughed, saying ‘My children have bested me! My children have bested me!!’”

____________________________________

And: “He who toils in Torah and discovers in it new meanings that are true contributes new Torah which is treasured by the congregation of Israel.” (the Zohar)

And: “The words of Torah are fruitful and multiply!” (BT, tractate Hagigah)

And: “A place has been left for me to labor in it [the Torah].” (BT, tractate Hullin)

And: “Every symbol is interpreted differently by every individual because every individual is a unique entity.” (from your rabbi)

—Talmudic quotes from The Talmudic Anthology, Louis I. Newman, ed.

____________________________________

Now, I will extend this kind of midrashic openness—not only to the written Torah, or the textualized versions of the oral Torah (Talmuds, Midrashim, Zohar, etc.)—but to the Torah that is the Logos/Tao of reality as well.*

There is then a kind of “active existential hermeneutic” which applies to our everyday perceptions, thought, decisions, actions. And that hermeneutic, like midrash applied to text, is creative.

_____________________________________

* I am aware that the Hebrew word generally translated into Greek as logos is davar; but there seems to plenty of rabbinical warrant for this extension of torah.

Originally posted by black beetle
So Ben Azzai knew -and at the same time knew not- that he will die when he face Him; he was "unprepared" to see the vision/ thus he was "prepared" to die

it seems to me that he was eager to unite with Him, to break the stability of his scheme and to become an existence under aziluthian qeter; but I have no way to Know if Ben Azzai was free at last or if I simply follow Acher's path

Nothing Holy
😵

Nothing Holy

Ah yes: Rabbi Bodhidharma! 😵

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Nothing Holy

Ah yes: Rabbi Bodhidharma! 😵[/b]

😵

The systems are well respected

Hindha Shushumna Pinghala
Yin Tao Yang
3 1 2
5 4
6
8 7
9
10

All of them three they seem to me perfect ways leading all the way up, and perfect yet for surfing within the four worlds big time
😵