Now you need to study another fundemental Ma'amar באתי לגני (or at the very least read the first part thereof).
And you seem to be ignoring what I wrote above:
Let me preface by saying I have never studied any chabad literature before, besides some parts of the תניא.
However, I went through the whole ביום עשתי עשר יום piece (haven't looked at the באתי לגני piece yet.) and there's just so much to say.
Firstly, who's the author? Is this the latest rebbe's writings? Style is very different than the תניא, and he keeps saying things like "כידוע" and the like, and most of the time the footnotes show other ספרי חב"ד as the referance, and as I said I am unlearned in their seforim.
However, I was quite impressed of the level of sophistication of philosophical ideas that are being discussed there in general.
Being that these are some of the most subtle ideas of yiddishkeit, even small improperly used grammer can really quickly be straight כפירה.
So being that I am unlearned in their vernacular, it presents major difficulties to me.
For example, something like עצמות אור אין סוף vs אור אין סוף vs אין סוף vs עצמותו are of such vital importance that without knowing what the author is referring too becomes impossible to analyze just one of his pieces.
Meaning, does he hold that אין סוף and עצמותו are the same thing or not?
Why when he's referring to hashem who's being משפיע through the אצילות he calls it עצמות אוא"ס why is that אור and not אין סוף itself?
אור is what we perceive of the אין סוף but hashem himself is the מאור not the אור. Is this on purpose?
So according to his central theme would we not strive to cleave to the מאור as well? Why not go a step further?
When he says אנא נסיב מלכא he's saying we don't want even the highest levels of atzilus rather we want עצמות אור אין סוף and he quotes the pasuk in Eicha of חלקי יהוה, but it's not מוכח as according to mainstream kabbalah that would just be referring to the sefirah of ת"ת not to anything higher then the sfiros, I mean even our very Neshamos come from בינה , תפארת ומלכות but he seems to say that our Neshamos want it's Shoresh which is above the atzilus it wants hashems essence, thats a very difficult thing for me to agree/understand as it's against everything the main seforim say and without mekoros?!?!
He says that לעתיד לבוא will be
, הרי עיקר הגילוי שיהי' בגאולה העתידה הוא הגילוי דעצמות אוא"ס שלמעלה מהשגה
Once again what does he even mean, we know עולם הבא will be a בחינה of ספירת בינה it's actually one of the כינויים for בינה, which yes it is למעלה מהשגה but that's not עצמותו.
He brings the pasuk of תפלה לעני כי יעטןף and says once again כידוע מהבש"ט that dovid wanted his tfillah to go straight to עצמותו (unless I'm misunderstanding) they bring in footnotes it's in כתר שם טוב and אור המאיר parshas vayishlach, well I checked up in the latter and it's deff not there, and it just seems so wrong, as we know hashem is ומרומם על כל ברכה ותהילה so any inyan of ברכה and שבח can ONLY be referred to as a תוספת ברכה in the sefiros, but to say a bracha addressing אין סוף directly should constitute the ultimate כפירה. As there is no שינוי or ברכה shayich bichllal as he is the ultimate shleimus.
So I must be not understanding some of the terminology here, the תניא I found to be rather straight forward he uses the standard terms brought in mainstream seforim but having a hard time with this author...
What are your thoughts
@ExGingi?
