Wednesday, November 11, 2009

G-d and His potentials

A shiur from hemshech Samech Vov by Rabbi Paltiel that briefly reviews preceding answer to “Why Hashem created the world” and goes into meat and potatoes: explanation of the concept ein koach choser poel l’ma’alah — no power Above is lacking expression.

The question is: does Hashem need to “express” Himself in his Creation? And if He isn’t expressing Himself, is He missing something? Arizal seems to think so. Of course, one cannot say that Hashem is missing something — so, that’s why this world is here.

Rabbi Paltiel explains that first of all, Hashem has no powers Himself. No powers are intrinsic to Him — He is simple and has no parts, no “programs” to be found “inside” of Him. Hashem in His essence has no “personality”, no intellect or emotions. He creates them as tools — and if they are not expressed, they are lacking expression.

But, there is a footnote: “The reason we have just given is not a real reason.” Why? Because no possibility is missing up High. Hashem has no deficiencies.

Second, Rabbi Paltiel explains the difference between G-d and G-dliness. Eibeshter and Elokus. What is Elokus? Something between G-d and Creation — a concept that exists only in Kabbala and not in Chakirah, Jewish philosophy.

Third, Rabbi Paltiel explains that not only is there no lack in Hashem, but also no lack in His Light. (“If Atzilus has a brain, the moment Hashem creates it, it is full of all possible knowledge.”)

Finally, a resolution is reached, and why Arizal’s reason for creation of the world cannot be the deepest one is explained.

As a bonus, a very important topic — the differences between koichos and yechoilos (powers and potentials) of G-d — is covered.

Listen on.

People of artistic persuasion may appreciate the moshol at the beginning. Or not. :)

It doesn’t matter whether you’ve learned the hemshech or if you have any significant background in Chassidus Chabad. This is a crucial concept in understanding of our understanding [sic] of Hashem.

7 comments:

bonne said...

This was good, thanks for posting it.

Anarchist Chossid said...

Do you agree with the moshol? If your paintings are not hanging on some b"b's wall, do you feel something is lacking?

bonne said...

What does b"b stand for?
I never went into art thinking I'd make money from it, that people would want to buy it. It would be nice if my art were hanging on some wall...but then again, things of importance to me are generally kept private except from those I want to share them with.
I think making my art public would be more an obligation than desire.
I'm still digesting it...

Anarchist Chossid said...

bb = baalabos

I think the same way about science. I don’t care if it’s recognized or even if it is useful. Of course, I’d like other people to know about my research, because it facilitates further research, but my research (what little of it I am doing) is for me.

Actually, I think Rabbi Paltiel’s moshol (comparing artists may still apply. In your recent post you wrote about all those things you wanted to paint (I liked the one with an eager boy and a girl who is trying to smile) — do you feel something inside of you is lacking, if your inner thoughts/feelings/states are not expressed on the physical canvas?

bonne said...

Yes, the whole point for me is that the actual painting was created. If there is no picture on that canvas, I would feel the sense of something missing. Right now I'm going a bit insane because all the works I do are just practice paintings, though the practice is necessary.

Anarchist Chossid said...

So, this is an example of koach choser poel.

Why can’t you do the drawings right now (even as sketches)?

Good Shabbos…

bonne said...

Oh I have sketches, but serve mostly that I don't forget my ideas.
A bit delayed, shavuah tov.