Mystical & Practical

I read the comments. A salient one is that there is no Hebrew word for" mystical," and for a very good reason. Weren't we advised that Kabbalah should not be studied before achieving the proper age of 40? There is no denying that there is a connection with " plain" Halacha that makes humans trying to understand the wonders of the world, and H' . I have a fear that those who lean too much on the "mystical" at the expense of Halacha they might get easily lost since practicing being a Jew daily is by itself a big wonderful task. Reply

It does seem at first glance that the body and soul are acting as one. This is because the body is inert, and merely a puppet for the soul. One can tell this because when the soul leaves the body it will never move or anything like it. It will only decay to nothing.

The Soul, on the other hand, is known as “a tiny piece” of G-d. G-d IS the “I AM”. This is the Only Self there is. His is also the only “mind” that exists. He is the ACTUALITY, of the word that is not the thing itself.

Each of us seems to identify with the mind, “I am”, which is merely a conception. As we identify with this we block out the I AM, the Infinite. As long as we identify with our thoughts and concepts, we can’t get past the “me” to I AM.

It is important to keep things direct and simple. Reply

Mystic is a Christian word from 17th century. There is no direct translation to Hebrew in Torah or Aramaic in the the Zohar. The Rebbe used this word to explain a kabbalistic meaning, as it is understood by modern English speakers Reply

Opposites Connect All the Zohar speaks about is how to connect the two opposite forces:
The force of the Creator (soul/mystical) with the force of the creation (body).
He is the force of giving, we are the force of receiving.

Initially His force binded us together as one soul. When He removed His presence from us we shattered. We sensed only our self and exposed the desire for self gratification.
To reassemble that initial structure we need to learn how to use our selfish desire, of our essence, the 'body' so that we can direct it towards others.
With this intention to sense others above my self, I build the bridge to reconnect in brotherly love and overcome the divisiveness between us.

It can rake 6,000 years to shift our attitude towards love of others (mystical) above my will to satisfy myself (practical or corporeal nature of my desires - referred to by Kabbalists as my 'body' ) Reply

287. Mystical & Practical Isn't this the essence of truth? Each time my faith falters I look to these very words, I open my eyes and Creation is once more revealed in new and glorious and impressive ways.
Anonymous writes: "G-d is the source of all life, the divine spark is within all it is only the failure of humans to experience, know and acknowledge this and in the process humans do not guard, cherish as precious and care for that which is created by G-d." What could possibly be more true? 'Cherish as precious' - so very important.
Rob, I guess your Christian friend was a liberal. Sadly too much liberal - 'do as you please' - Christianity has so much sway in this day and age. We can all learn from the simple truthful ways of the new Pope. Reply

Yes this is my learning and understanding, however a few weeks ago there was a story about the human nature and animal nature upon which I commented that animal nature is much maligned and more accurately it is our own nature either acting in accordance with G-d or in discord with the potential G-d has given us. I received a most patronizing letter from a man saying animals do not contain the divine spark. G-d is the source of all life, the divine spark is within all it is only the failure of humans to experience, know and acknowledge this and in the process humans do not guard, cherish as precious and care for that which is created by G-d. Reply

Mystical and Practical I once debated a Christian via email. He spoke of morality and practicality as if they were two different things. I argued that this was actually an illusion; I argued that what is truly moral is practical, and that what was truly practical is moral. He gave the example of a chashier who accidentally miscalculates and gives back too much change at the end of a sales transaction. He argued that the practical thing for the customer to do would be to keep the extra change, but that the moral thing to do would be for the customer to rectify the situation by returning the excess change to the cashier. I then argued that it would be both moral & practical for the customer to do the honest thing because honesty and accuracy benefit the whole society. If the customer took advantage of the cashier's honest mistake, that would not be practical -- it would simply be greedy and therefore neither moral nor practical.
Reply