We saw there are two kinds of hashpah – ohr and shefa. With shefa there is an actual transfer – giving of the actual understanding – so the recipient has it on his own. Ohr is only a reflection from the real thing – the essence is not given over. The sun is not affected at all that it is giving off light.
Similarly in ohr ein sof, baruch hu, that is only haarah levad – there is no essence in it. For this reason it is called “ein sof – no end” and not “ein techilah – no beginning” since it does have a beginning. The beginning is the etzem from which the ohr is coming. Even as it exists outside the source, it still functions because it is attached to the source.
But there is also a superior quality in ohr over shefa – the ohr cleaves to the source, and without the connection it would not exist. But shefa does not have this connection to the source. Like in throwing a stone, the koach is separated from the hand, which means that when the koach carries the stone, the hand is at rest. Because ohr stays connected it is like the essence of the illuminator, but in shefa the hashpaa is not like the mashpia himself.
In the case of shefa, the sechel still started with the mashpiah – the sechel is reflective of the etzem. In secular thought you have the idea of evolution and the big bang – woldly explanations for the world – in contrast to this we say the world is rooted above world, made and sustained by the Creator. How did these opposing views originate? Each presented kfi ofen ha etzem – as is the essence – when one sees himself as a metziut then he sees the world that way and explains it as such. Evolution says each thing is trying to enhance its own metzius.
As opposed to this you have a sechel based on the nefesh elokis – which is ein / nothing. Thus all that is encountered is reflective of this. Thus all is elokus. And if there is a metziut it is because elokus is concealed.
Since the sechel is according to its etzem there is difficulty since the idea of evolutions seems to grasp the world – the nefesh ha bahamit attests to its truth.
Shefa presents it the way etzem would think of it, but not as the etzem is itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment