Re: Soul mirrors/desires

["Martin" <martin@...>]

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