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.
No comments:
Post a Comment