AyinBase / Ayin Beis with R' Paltiel, Adar א
Page 28 – (at last quarter of the page. Line starts: 'hamekabel...'). For text see below.
Questions and comments:
The mentor/mashpia and the mekabel/recipient are not in the same world. The recipient is also at a level and is able to receive the light and relate to is. He also has sechel/mind. But he has it when it is bestowed upon him.
The mashpia has it at a higher level – he goes to the source.
The mentor does not intend to give technical elements and information – he intends to give the mentee the light/ohr.
To do this, the mentor must first constrict his own sechel/mind. In his mind he recognizes the source from where it comes. He is receiving from levels beyond mind.
After class – a discussion to clarify and summarise:
The Eitz Chaim asked, “Why do we need to have the contraction of the light, and then the introduction (or reintroduction) of the kav (the narrow beam of light from which all creation is sourced)? Why did the Creator not just pare away the infinite element of the light and thus leave the kav and you'd be good to go?!”
The answer to this was presented in a metaphor. For the master/mentor/mashpia to really reach the recipient he has to absent his own inner light. He has an 'illuminated consciousness' that is drawing on a source higher than mind and consciousness. Think of a sighted person describing an object or a scene to a blind man. He must first 'fully remove his sense of sight' before he can address the blind man from within his experience.
And without this complete removal or contraction of the mentor's viewpoint he could never be able to identify the perspective or approach that will reach his student...
Once this answer is brought in contrast to the suggestion of the Eitz Chaim, the Rebbe goes on to point out that indeed in the light which preceded the contraction/tzimtzum i.e. in the infinite light, there is the origin of the kav in the form of the '10 hidden sphirot'.
And this means that indeed the approach of the Eitz Chaim does seem to have validity (in contrast to what is explained in the previous paragraphs), because this would mean the kav has sufficient definition that it could be identified simply by removing the infinite elements of the light.