The transcript has been transcribed and edited from English simultaneous interpretation, thus there may be potential semantic inaccuracies within it.

Morning Lesson July 07, 2024.

Part 1 Baal HaSulam. The Writings of the Last Generation.

Reader: Shalom, we will be reading from the writings of Baal HaSulam, The Writings of the Last Generation, continuing Part One, heading, The Differences Between Me and Schopenhauer. You can find all of our texts on kabbalahmedia.info as well as through the Arvut system where you can send us questions live. Anyone asking a question here in the study hall is requested to stand up, hold the microphone close to his mouth and speak loudly and clearly.

Reading: (00:37) The Differences Between Me and Schopenhauer: 

[Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher]

1) He perceives it as an essence on its own, while I perceive it as a type and a predicate. Its essence may be unknown, but whatever it may be, it extends existence from existence.

2) He perceives the desire itself as an ambition that no goal can end but is rather a constant ascent and perpetual drive. With me, however, it is limited to receiving certain things, and can be satiated, meaning directed.

However, attaining the goal increases the will to receive, as in, he who has one hundred wants two hundred. Prior to this, the will to receive was limited to obtaining only one hundred; it did not want two hundred. In this manner, the constant desire is expansion of the desire; it is not the will to receive itself.

3) He does not differentiate between the will to bestow and the will to receive. With me, only the will to receive is the essence of the creature, while the will to bestow in it is a Godly light, ascribed to the Creator, not to the creature.

4) He perceives the desire itself as an object, considering it a form and an occurrence in the object. With me, the emphasis is rather on the form of the desire, meaning the will to receive, but the carrier of the form of the will to receive is an unknown essence.

1) … Since he considers the desire as the subject, he must define some general, formless desire. Thus, he chooses the endless aspiration for materials, and what it wants is the form. Yet, in truth, there is no endless yearning here, but a growing desire that grows according to the direction, and it is a form and a case in the desire.

A) In his method, it is an essence, and in mine, a form.

B) In his method, it is a never-ending desire, and in mine, it is limited in its direction.

C) In his method, there is no difference between bestowing and receiving, and in mine, the will to bestow is a spark of the Creator.

D) In his method, the yearning is a substance, and the quality of the reception, the form, and in mine, the quality of reception is the substance of creation, and the carrier of the quality is unknown. Whatever it is, it is existence from existence.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (06:03) I want to explain, so what do we see here? We see a very nice maneuver by Baal HaSulam, where he takes a philosopher who was very famous during his days, Schopenhauer, in the 19th century. He grew famous towards the First World War. In Israel, he was one of the great influencers on Darwin and Einstein also, by the way. And I assume one of the people Baal HaSulam talked to about disseminating his method told him, look, there's someone who's writing similar things to you, you should read it and relate to it, so he did. Now, in a book he wrote called The World's Representation something, I don't remember the name exactly, he presents a whole worldview. He presents a view according to which the will is the foundation, the basis for everything in reality. And if Kant wrote that we are limited in our perceptions, and we attain only phenomena, not the roots; Schopenhauer continued and said that we don't perceive only the roots, the different roots of phenomena, rather, there is one single root, and a person is limited in his perception, seeing only things that happen, not the reality, itself. He says that ultimately, the essence of reality is the will, and Baal HaSulam corrects him, here. He says, Schopenhauer said that a person is driven by the will to fill himself endlessly, and that takes him to dark, bad places, also influenced how Freud perceives the will. But Baal HaSulam adds to him, he says that there's something deeper here. That first of all, there is a root to the desire, which he doesn't identify, which is the Creator. He says that there's a will to receive, and also a will to bestow, not just a desire to be filled endlessly. And also, he continues saying that there's, it's not the essence, ,rather. So, he takes, Baal HaSulam takes a philosopher who was very famous; and also, we need to understand that Israeli perceptions and philosophy were very much influenced by German philosophy. And we had, the universities here were established by people who were students of that, so it all comes from there. And Baal HaSulam takes what's being studied there to explain to them upon that foundation what's actually true. So, it's very nice to see how Baal HaSulam studies whatever he needs to in order to assist him, assist in the explanation of the foundations of creation. 

M. Laitman: Okay, thank you. Well, next. 

Reading: (08:54) Part Two, Leaders of the Generation: The masses tend to believe that the leader has no personal commitments and interests, but that he has dedicated and abandoned his private life for the common good. Indeed, this is how it should be. If the leader harms a member of the public due to personal interest, he is a traitor and a liar. Once the public knows it, they will immediately trample him to the ground.

There are two kinds of personal interests: 1) material interests, 2) mental interests. There is not a leader in the world who will not fail the public for mental interests. For example, if one is merciful, and hence refrains from uprooting evildoers or warning about them, then he ruins the public in favor of a personal interest. He might also be afraid of vengeance, even the vengeance of the Creator, and thus deters from making necessary corrections.

Thus, if he wishes to annul material interests, he will not wish to annul the idealistic or religious interests in favor of the public, though they may be only his own personal sensations. The general public may have no dealings with them, for they notice only the word “interest,” since even the most idealistic thing does not stand in the way of “interest.”

Reading: (11:51) Action Before Thought: As in desire and love, the exertion over an object creates love toward, and appreciation of the object. In much the same way, good deeds beget love for the Creator, love begets Dvekut [adhesion], and Dvekut begets intelligence and knowledge.

Reading: (12:37) Three Postulates [Axioms]: Seemingly free, seemingly immortal, seemingly existing [the last word is unclear in the manuscript and is therefore a speculation]. They are relative to practical reason (ethics), to the most sublime good.

Reading: (13:05) Truth and Falsehood: It is known that thought, matter, and desire are two modifications [differences of form] of the same thing. Thus, the psychological replica of physical absence and existence is truth and falsehood. In this manner, truth, like existence, is the thesis, and falsehood, like absence, is the antithesis. The desired synthesis is the progeny of both.

[Here and below, the words “new page” mark the beginning of a new page or a new section in the manuscript.]

Reading: (14:11) Personal Opinion and Public Opinion: The opinion of the individual is like a mirror where all the pictures of the beneficial and detrimental acts are gathered. One looks at those experiences, sorts out the good and beneficial ones, and rejects the acts that have harmed him. This is called the “memory brain.”

For example, the merchant follows in his mind all kinds of merchandise where he suffered losses, and why. It is likewise with merchandise that yielded profits for him, and the reasons. They are arranged like a mirror of experiences in his mind. Subsequently, he sorts out the good and rejects the bad. Finally, he becomes a good and successful merchant. One deals in much the same way with every experience in life.

Similarly, the public has a collective mind, a memory brain, and collective imagination where all the acts related to the public and the collective are imprinted, from every person, the beneficial ones and the detrimental ones. And they also choose the beneficial acts and doers and want those who do them to persist. In addition, all the doers of bad deeds that harm the public are imprinted in the imagining and memory brain, and they loathe them and seek tactics to get rid of them.

Hence, they praise and glorify the doers of the beneficial acts in order to increasingly motivate them to these acts. This is where ideals, idealists, and every good attribute come from, as well as the wisdom of ethics.

Conversely, they will strongly condemn the doers of detrimental actions, so as to stop and get rid of them. This is the origin of every evil trait, sin, and ignobility in the human race. Thus, individual opinion operates just like public opinion. Yet, this is true only with regard to benefit and harm.

Reading: (18:10) The Corruption in Public Opinion: The corruption in public opinion is that the public is not arranged according to its majority, but only according to the powerful, meaning the assertive. It is as they say, that twenty people rule all of France. In most cases, they are the rich, which are but ten percent of the public, and they are always the ignorant among the people (even in the eyes of the public).

They harm the public and exploit them. Hence, public opinion is not in control of the world whatsoever. Rather, it is the opinion of the detrimental that controls the public. Thus, even the idealists that were sanctified in the world are but demons and evildoers with regard to the majority of the public. Not only religion, but justice, too, favors only the rich, all the more so ethics and ideals.

Reading: (20:06) The Origin of Democracy and Socialism: This is where the idea of democracy stems from, so the majority of the public will take the judicial system and politics into its own hands. Socialism also calls for the workers to take their destiny into their own hands. In short, the majority wants to determine public opinion, decide between beneficial and detrimental for them, and determine all the laws and ideals accordingly.

Reading: (21:04) The Contradiction between Democracy and Socialism: The contradiction between democracy and socialism, as seen in Russia, is that ten percent control the entire public in absolute dictatorship. The reason is simple: Just division requires idealism. This is not found among the majority of the public. Hence, ultimately, it is bound to fall, and there is no cure for this except through religion, from above, which will turn the entire public into idealists.

Reading: (22:05) Contact with Him: People imagine that a person who has contact with Him is a person... nature, and that they should fear speaking to Him, much less be in His immediate vicinity. It is human nature to fear anything outside the nature of creation. People also fear anything uncommon, such as thunder and loud noises.

However, He is not so. This is because in fact, there is nothing more natural than coming into contact with one’s Maker, for He has made nature. In fact, every creature has contact with his Maker, as it is written, “The whole earth is full of His glory,” except we do not know or feel it.

Actually, one who is awarded contact with Him attains only the awareness. It is as though one has a treasure in his pocket, and he does not know it. Along comes another and lets him know what is in his pocket. Now he really has become rich.

Yet, there is nothing new here, no cause for excitement. In fact, nothing has been added in the actual reality. The same is true for one who has been granted the gift of knowing that he is the Creator’s son: Nothing has changed in his actual reality but the awareness he did not have before.

Consequently, the attaining person becomes very natural, simple, and very humble. It might even be said that before the endowment, that person and all the people were outside of the simple nature. This is because now he is equal, simple, and understands all the people. He is very much involved with them, and no one is closer to the folk than he, and it is only him that they should love, for they have no closer brother than him.

Reading: (25:46) Rebuilding the World: See “Personal Opinion and Public Opinion,” and “The Contradiction between Democracy and Socialism.”

It has been clarified there that until now public opinion evolved and was built according to the powerful ones in society, meaning the assertive. It is only recently that the masses have evolved through religion, through schools, and revolutions, and have perceived the method of democracy and socialism.

However, according to the natural law that “a man is born a wild ass’ colt,” and man is an upshot of a wild animal and a monkey, according to Darwin’s method or that of our sages, after the sin, the human species decline into monkeys, for “All before Eve are as a monkey before the man.” However, according to man's merit, who consists in intellectual preparation, he continued to develop through deeds and suffering, and assumed religion, politics, and justice, and finally became civilized. Indeed, this entire development was placed solely on the shoulders of the better part of society, and the masses followed them like a herd.

When the masses opened their eyes to take their fate into their hands, they had to revoke all the corrections and laws of the assertive, being religion, justice, and politics. This is because these were only according to the spirit of the assertive, according to their development and for their own good.

Thus, they had to build the world anew. In other words, they are like prehistoric people, the Darwinian ape, as they are not the ones who experienced these experiences, which brought them their measure of development. Until today, the succession of development was solely on the shoulders of the assertive, not on the masses, who, until now, were virgin soil.

Thus, the world is now in a state of total ruin. It is very primitive in the political sense, as in the age of the cave dwellers. They have not been through the experiences and actions that brought the assertive to take upon themselves religion, manners, and justice.

Hence, if we let the world develop naturally, today’s world must undergo all the ruin and torments that the primitive man experienced until they are compelled to assume permanent and beneficial political justice.

The first fruit of the ruin came upon us in the form of Nazism, which is ultimately merely a direct offshoot of democracy and socialism, meaning of the leadership of the majority, once the restraints of religion, manners, and justice have been removed.

Nazism is not an offshoot of Germany.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (31:20) What is he actually saying here? It seems he's saying that Democracy came about 150 years ago, and before that, the world   advanced nations were led by the assertive. And it seems that he says that the assertive came to a state which he calls justice, manners, religion. It doesn't feel so, countries were at war?

M. Laitman: Yes, but even wars are a development.

Student: And also, he says that democracies didn't go through this process of rulership by the majority and now it has to be done again. He likens it to the primitive people. He says that rulership by majorities, is it better, is it worse, what is the conclusion?

M. Laitman: I don't know if to call it better or worse, it's evolving.

Student: Is he only describing to us the historical progress? Or does he want us to derive some conclusions?

M. Laitman: That I don't know, conclusions, that's still early, still early for conclusions. He says, therefore, the world now is in a state of destruction, primitive, and so on and so forth. This is still going to go through the hardships and trials, etc.

Student: This, too, is difficult to understand because before that, he defines something called the memory brain. So, everyone goes to school, learns of this historical progress.

M. Laitman: That depends what they receive. What's the result of development, you see the next headline, Nazism.

Student: If I can ask, you give the example of a baby many times, who was just born. And it's as though he has the crude experience of the whole of reality. Here he says the opposite, that we need to go through these things or have them happen to us.

M. Laitman: We don't see how it will happen, that the young generation will undergo all the experiences that we have gone through, it's impossible. We'll see, we'll see, onward, this is a period of darkness. 

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (34:38) He presents the opinion of the sages, here. He says that according to natural law, a person is born like a donkey and he's an offshoot of a monkey, like Darwin said, or as the sages said. That after the sin everyone was turned into monkeys or reverted into monkeys and so on. There was always an argument between religion and science. Seemingly, science was saying that people descended from apes, and religion said no. But here he says that yes, there was a sin, and after the sin, the human descended to the degree of an ape and then continued developing. That's a new thing here.

M. Laitman: So, you agree with Darwin? 

Student: I agree with Baal HaSulam. But he doesn't contradict Darwin. He says that Darwin sees but he doesn't truly see the origin.

M. Laitman: Yes. We'll continue. 

Reading: (35:46) Nazism Is Not an Offshoot of Germany: It turns out that the world erroneously considers Nazism a particular offshoot of Germany. In truth, it is the offshoot of a democracy and socialism that were left without religion, manners, and justice. Thus, all the nations are the same in this, and there is no hope at all that Nazism will perish with the victory of the Allies, for tomorrow the Anglo-Saxons will adopt Nazism, since they, too, live in a world of democrats and Nazis.

Remember that democrats, too, must renounce religion, manners, and justice of peace like the Marxists, since all these are loyal servants only of the assertive in the public. They always place obstacles before the democrats, or the better part [majority] of the public.

It is true that thinkers among the democrats keep a watchful eye that religion and manners are not destroyed at once, for they know that the world will be ruined. However, to that extent they also interfere with the government of the majority. Once the majority grows smart and understands them, it will certainly elect other leaders, such as Hitler, since he is a genuine representative of the majority of the public, be it German, Anglo-Saxon, or Polish.

Reading: (38:21) The One Council: Unlike the democrats—who wish to cancel religion and manners gradually and adapt a new politics in a manner that will not ruin the world—the masses will not wait for them at all. Rather, as our sages say, “Do not ruin a synagogue before you can build a new one in its stead.” In other words, we are forbidden to let the powerful ones [majority] take the helm of leadership before we build a religion, conducts, and politics suitable for them, for in the meantime the world will be ruined and there will be no one with whom to speak. 

Reading: (39:39) Nihilism: [a philosophical view that negates all the traditional values and institutions]

Not complete nihilism, but nihilism of values (such as Nietzsche with regards to the values of Christianity), meaning all the values in the religious conducts, ethics, and politics that have been thus far accepted in the perception of humanism.

All these are compromises in the measurements of egoism of the individual, the state, or a servant of the Creator. And I say that any measure of egoism is flawed and detrimental, and there is no other arrangement except altruism, in the individual, the public, and the Creator.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (40:52) I want to relate to that if possible: Here he concludes a certain topic. So, with respect to the writings of the last generation, Part One is the most organized. Baal HaSulam truly wrote his ideas as they developed and from there we start with uncompleted writings, drafts, that's how he relates to it. Now he concluded one idea, now he moves to the idea that is born from the first one. He explains what he explained in The Nation paper about regimes, as he saw it. He also always says that revolutions, as they happened, they allowed the masses to take over,  and because the masses aren't developed. He calls it morality, the morality in the nation, other names also. So, what they do, they take control of the nation, but because they're not fully developed after the big revolutions in the 1700s and so on. Because the peasants take charge, their inner development, this is what it will beget. And so, he says, from a historical perspective, why does he introduce Nietzsche, here? Because history, as it happened with modern society, what happened is that it gradually grew distant to ethics and religion, Christianity and so on. And then new values developed, and a person would always lower his head before God and his messenger, you know, they thought. But this whole historical development descended, and Nietzsche warned that if other high values do not replace all that, then man will determine the new values. And because man is egoistic, they created a self-devouring society. So now, if there are no higher values, if the people determine the higher values, then we're done for. So, what Baal HaSulam says here, he turns all of this into an introduction for why we need an altruistic religion. And here will come many new, very nice things, he's going to say why religion today is incorrect. And what alternative religion he presents builds on altruism instead of egoism. Meaning he explains the development of various regimes, why democracy and socialism in the hands of people who are not fully developed, internally, will lead to disaster and not anything good. And he explains why, instead of the religion that was abandoned, we need to develop a new religion on an altruistic foundation. And if that doesn't happen, we're going to reach Nazism and not the good places that people dreamed of. And here he goes into what all the people who critique it say, they say that people, that the world will reach a better place, right? That's the basis of progress, they say that there are some human ideals that we can reach. But Baal HaSulam says, no, if we continue developing in the human direction, let's say, we're not going to reach a pluralistic, humanistic society. Rather it's going to be a colossal disaster if we replace, if people, replace the old values with new values.

M. Laitman: Thank you. 

Reading: (44:15) Materialistic Monism: Substance fathers everything, and the thought is the result of actions and sensations, much like a mirror. There is no freedom of will, only freedom of actions. However, not by itself, for evil deeds induce evil deeds, and the freedom of actions is perceived by looking (in the mirror of called upon actions) through another person’s mind. Then one has the freedom to obey it. And he will not be able to choose from his own (mirror) mind, since every man's way seems right in his own eyes, and his mind always agrees.

Reading: (45:21) Outside of This World: Outside of this world, we must research and examine only subjectively and pragmatically (practically). This way is the conduct of the research in this world, although it is outside of it, as it contemplates by measurements clothed in the nature of this world, and also according to the practical (pragmatic) benefit.

Reading: (46:05) What Is Outside of This World? Only the Creator is imperative, since He is the place of the world, and the world is not His place. It is He alone Whom we understand to also be outside of this world, and nothing else, unlike pantheism.

This world is an objective term which can be understood objectively, as well. Its first principles are “time” and “space.” Outside of this world, which are the worlds AK and ABYA [the worlds Adam Kadmon, Atzilut, Beria, Yetzira, and Assiya], only subjective comprehension is possible, without touching the object whatsoever.

The essence of the objects we define by names in ABYA follow the assumption that since everyone perceives so without exception (meaning a chosen few in each generation, which are the tens of thousands and the millions that were and are destined to be). Thus, we have objective attainment there, though we do not touch the objects whatsoever.

From here come the four worlds above this world, though by nature they are only subjective, clothing the natures of this world in the two ways—expansion and thought—namely psychophysical parallelism. This is so because we know any object by two forms: physical first, and psychic next, and they always go together in a parallel manner.

It is known that in this world, too, many perceive the method of “expressionism,” meaning solely by subjective perception. However, I also abide by “impressionism” to explain concepts of this world as objectively as possible, minimizing the interference of subjective reinforcement.

Reading: (49:43) The Essence of Religion: The essence of religion is understood only pragmatically, as written by James [William James (1842-1910), American philosopher]. The origin of faith is in the need for the truth in it, inasmuch as it satisfies this need.

There are two kinds of needs: 1) A mental need. Without it, life would become sickeningly detestable. 2) A physical need. This need appears primarily in the social order, such as in ethics and politics, as Kant [Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German philosopher] had written, “Faith is the basis of morality, and guards it.”

Naturally, sages will come solely from among those with the mental need, for they also need it objectively. However, the second part will derive satisfaction, namely truth, also subjectively. However, from Lo Lishma [not for Her sake] one comes to Lishma [for Her sake]. The need precedes the reason that necessitates faith.

M. Laitman: Right, maybe that's enough for us, right? We'll continue this, of course, because these are The Writings of the Last Generation after all. As much as we can absorb, even just listening, it's somehow incorporated.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (52:28) Just a general question: We see that the attitude of Kabbalists and Baal HaSulam to philosophy is not a respectful one.

M. Laitman: Not at all.

Student: And here, he actually does a comparative analysis opposite to what we're typically used to.

M. Laitman: No, the fact that we seemingly disregard philosophy, it doesn't mean that we need to avoid reading it, not to know it, not to study it and to just throw it away, entirely. Still, it is the fruit of great works of people, wise people, who have dedicated years of study to it. And so, I don't think that we need to, that we can afford to disregard it. Who are we?

Student: Yes, but it seems like the Kabbalists just avoid all this comparison. Also, when we teach students, in our case, we typically say, we teach the method of Baal HaSulam, we don't make comparisons and so forth.

M. Laitman: That's in order to avoid delving too deeply into it; and also growing confused, ourselves, and confusing the students.

Student: So here he does do it. Does he turn to the intelligentsia, why does he go into all of this?

M. Laitman: Look, all that I don't know. Friend, do you have an opinion? Please.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (54:21) Yes, what he does here and later on I think is very beautiful, that's how I see it. He takes all the terms to which he gives a very firm basis in the wisdom of Kabbalah. And he writes in places where it can be suitable. Like, when he writes about expressionism and impressionism, it's about perception of reality. Before that, he talks about root and branch, how root and branch dress into our world, and he called it in different names, like the psychophysical parallelism. In short, he's trying to show how there's a root and branch and they're like two drops in a pond. Also,  we shouldn't forget, these are notes to self, he writes notes to himself. I feel that he did all that at that time because the goal justified it, today, it's a different story. When people were establishing the state of Israel, these things were impressive to them, and he looked for a way to explain to them. Also, those who were considered the spiritual philosophers of the nation built a lot on these ideas. And so, he took each of them and tried to show the interpretation from a Kabbalistic perspective. How Kabbalah refines this, explains this, interprets this. Pantheism, for instance, is the perception that God is nature, so he says, no, it's not just that, there's something outside of nature, and explains that; and materialism and all of that development. So, he says, yes, there is historical materialism but it's not the development of economic regime. It’s the development of the matter of creation from beginning to end. So, I see it as attempts to write to himself places where he can dress into what bothers the decision-makers that are putting together the country in order to show them how to create a correct society. It's not a philosophical game, that's not what bothers him, but he goes into that and understands it well in order to explain. And so he goes, for instance, to the James writings and takes his perception and then refines it,  and later on he uses Hegel. And so, I see it as his attempt to find the language that people of his generation appreciate and understand, through which he can explain his iron principles from which he doesn't move. So, it's like an external wrapper that he uses for the inner principles that don't change. We can’t learn from it because it already has changed a lot. We can learn about the greatness of the Kabbalists and how he wants to adapt the method to make it accessible to anyone. But today no one cares about this parallelism or impressionism, expressionism or James. But in his time, it was very much interesting for people, people read philosophy for their own development; also, those who established the state of Israel. So again, he tries to take his main principles, whether they're social, religious, spiritual, to a language that people talk about. 

Reader: (57:39) So before the next part of the lesson, we'll move to a song together.

Song: (57:46)