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

Daily (Morning) Lesson July 01, 2024.

Part 1: Baal HaSulam. The Last Generation

Reader: Hello, we are reading from the writings of Baal HaSulam, The Writings Of The Last Generation. We continue in Part One under the subheading, News, starting with Liars Are Those Who Say. You can find the study material on kabbalahgroup.info or the Arvut system. You can also send your questions there.

Part One: “News”

Reading: (00:29)

News

By the very same way they have exterminated the capitalists, they were also forced to exterminate the farmers. In addition, in the sense of the joy of life, they will always be forced to destroy the workers. Although Marx and Engels were the first to place the correction of the world on the workers, it did not occur to them to do it coercively, but rather democratically. For this reason, the workers had to be the majority, and then establish a proletariat government where the leaders of the regime would gradually correct until they come to the abstract altruism: each according to his actions, and each according to his needs.

Lenin added to it the establishment of the communist regime through forcing the minority opinion over the majority, hoping that afterward, altruism would be conducted among them, too. All that was needed for this was an armed camp of workers. Since the property owners are scattered, they could take the government by force, and then come and defeat the weak and unorganized property owners.

In this, he disagreed with Marx and said that it is quite the contrary; in the straggling countries, it is easier to defeat them, as all that is needed was to turn the soldiers into communists and destroyers of the property owners, and to take their property. It is easier to incite soldiers to kill and loot the property owners in a straggling country.

That is why he understood that he will not find a cruder multitude than in his own country, and therefore said that his country will be the first. However, when he saw that in fact it was not enough to destroy the capitalist ten percent, but that millions of farmers must also be destroyed, he grew tired, because it is impossible to destroy half a nation.

Then came Stalin, who said that the end justifies the means, and took upon himself the task of destroying the farmers, too. He was successful.

However, not one of them took into consideration that in the end, they need the good will of the workers, so they would work, and to instill in them the attribute of altruism, which would bring them to this motto. This is utterly impossible. Nature cannot be changed so that not only would one work for one’s needs, but for the needs of his friend. This is utterly impossible without coercion and compulsion. Ultimately, the majority will rise and revoke the regime.

Liars are those who say that idealism is either inherent or a result of education. Rather, it is a direct result of religion. As long as religion did not sufficiently expand throughout the world, the entire world was barbaric, without an ounce of conscientiousness.

Only after servants of the Creator expanded did the posterity of the agnostics become idealists. Thus, the idealist is only so because of his ancestry’s commandment. However, it is an orphaned commandment, meaning without a commander.

If religion were to be canceled altogether, all governments would then become Hitlers. Nothing would detain them from increasing the country’s benefits incessantly. Even today, governments know no sentiments. However, there is still a limit to their acts between the still and the idealists in the country. When religion is revoked, it will not be difficult for rulers to uproot the remaining idealists, just as it was not hard for Hitler and Stalin.

The difference between the idealist and the religious is that the idealist’s actions are baseless. He cannot convince anyone of his preference for justice, or who so necessitates it. Perhaps it is but faintness of heart, as Nietzsche said? He will not have a single sensible word to utter, which is why Hitler and Stalin overpowered them. However, the religious will boldly counter that it is so commanded by the Lord, and would give his life for it...

M. Laitman: Does anyone want to add or ask?

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (03:17) It's a beautiful expression, an orphaned commandment: There's a commandment but no commander. What does it mean?

M. Laitman: Anyone who accepts this commandment without knowing the roots, other natural roots in nature. In the social nature, in human nature. It is considered that he's keeping an orphaned commandment.

Student: He's speaking of the idealists, the religious who forgot, who is he speaking of?

M. Laitman: Each one with his quality, that there are people who can operate in such a way.

Student: If I got it correctly, what he's saying is that both Stalin and Hitler have left the Creator behind. And they said there's a human moral and that led them to become who they were.

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: And we see also the other way around, that most of the wars in the world throughout history, were waged in the name of religion. In the name of, seemingly, the Creator, claimed by each religion.

M. Laitman: That's how it was but disappeared because, in truth regarding religion, if it is possible to organize people around it, then it is a strong, stable foundation. But it has expired.

Student: What do you mean, expired? Also today, the wars that people are willing to die for. It's seemingly for some Creator who sent them to perform some commandment.

M. Laitman: Yes, but it's not the way it was; once it was in a necessary, compelling, manner that includes everything and everyone. Today, you already have many religions and they’re all some collision with each other. Well, nevertheless, let's see what he says.

Student: We see that also in the name of some Creator to perform some commandment that belongs in the past, brought ruin. Even when they tossed the Creator out and they said the science and the morals, they also brought ruin to the world. So, humanity should have had a revelation of evil, neither works, where do we see it?

M. Laitman: We see that, today, the whole of humanity, is like animals running away from a fire and there is nowhere to run to. Especially, we don't yet know the forces in the world that, in the meantime, are growing and establishing themselves, like Korea and others. We will see, it will be a lot worse than how it was. Well, we will see, there's nothing we can do about it.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (08:33) What motivates the idealist, if it's not religion?

M. Laitman: His ideals.

Student: Where does he get these ideals from because Baal HaSulam writes that it's not a result of education or anything like that.

M. Laitman: It's nature.

Student: Is there any connection to religion, except it's inverted or something? I don't know.

M. Laitman: Maybe there is some projection from religion but not necessarily. It could be an ideal that is entirely, independent of what is happening to us here in this world.

Student: So, you can say that the ideals of the idealists have a flaw in them. And only the religious ideals are the true ideals?

M. Laitman: That, too, from where do we have such proof, you see? This is already rooted in man's nature.

Student: What's rooted?

M. Laitman: To be an idealist.

Student: Except it's not clear to a person based on what?

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: So, how to develop correctly the quality of idealism in a person?

M. Laitman: Why?

Student: If it's rooted by nature, we need to know how to use it correctly, no?

M. Laitman: No.

Student: Or we should just cancel it?

M. Laitman: No, but we don't know in what form it is rooted and what does he get out of it, and what truly is his motive. In every ideal, you have thousands of people that exist around it. But if you start investigating them, or researching them, you'll see how different they are.

Student: What in religion, according to Baal HaSulam, is the correct form of the ideal? Or offers the correct motivation for a person?

M. Laitman: That everyone are more connected, more connected than in other cases. Religion, nevertheless, we see that today it is already clear to us that in the future, besides religion, there is nothing else that would connect people and give them a certain direction in life. It has to be some religion, some spiritual, more spiritual goal than their life. Inside their life, they will find nothing that will draw them and compel them to live based on abstract rules.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (12:43) If I can ask about it, some more, Baal HaSulam highlights it many times, also in this item. That religion makes up for a substantial ingredient in human development. We see that on the one hand, it brought morals and ethics to people, otherwise they would just devour each other. On the other hand, there are religious wars that last until today, we are in the middle of one. What is religion? How can we understand the role correctly of religion?

M. Laitman: To understand it, correctly, means that we don't understand what religion is. And how can we open up this concept for ourselves, in a truly open manner?

Student: Can we say that this is something that binds a person to the upper force? Even if he is still on an egoistic level?

M. Laitman: Yes, yes, a person is very much concerned about his connection with the upper force. That he has some force that he relies on, to a certain extent, so that if something happens to him, then this force will work, which is very important for a person because the unknown, it's a principle.

Student: Can we say that in every human, there is this attitude called, religion, and even if he thinks that he believes, he doesn't believe.

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: It's all an external form, but inside?

M. Laitman: Yes, subconsciously.

Student: And religion also gives you motivation, as he writes. It's on a true level a person can submit his entire soul, his life.

M. Laitman: Yes, yes. It is a special thing but it depends on what form the society supports it, holds it, and develops it.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (15:25) The question is who are the agnostics that he's describing here? On the one hand, we have people who have a desire to be in contact with the upper force. And suddenly we have the other part who takes their principles and cause all kinds of problems, the so-called idealists or the clothed in ideals, or even inside religion. Who are these agnostics or these epicures?

M. Laitman: We will see, we will see it in our lives, we are still in a transition from all kinds of social forms and forms of government to a new form, new forms.

Student: I'm asking maybe about this tendency like he asked, is there a tendency inside of us called agnostics that can sabotage our plan, our intention?

M. Laitman: We rely on the fact that Baal HaSulam understood and saw and felt. And he is serving us that new form of the society, and therefore we go forward in opening up our way according to what he said. Meaning through connection with all the opposing forms, this is how people open up the way for themselves.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (17:48) When he said it's going to be worse, anyone who is looking systemically at things sees that the system is moving in a worse direction. When a Kabbalist sees that the system is going in a worse direction, what is his response?

M. Laitman: He looks at to what extent will this work on ordinary people. Therefore, he says that it is worse, but actually, these are stages of development. In terms of the development, it is positive. In terms of how it goes all over all of the nations, it is worse.

Student: He sees the process as a process that serves the purpose of creation.

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: But his reaction, he puts his hand in it, he does something?

M. Laitman: We are not talking about that. This is individual work of the Kabbalists.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (19:28) Baal HaSulam speaks about the religion of bestowal. But how does he relate to all the previous forms of religion? Or what is his attitude toward religion?

M. Laitman: That they all will develop into the religion of bestowal.

Student: At what point religion becomes inefficient?

M. Laitman: It can't be that it's not beneficial, it's always beneficial. But to whom it is and to whom it isn't.

Student: Is religion in its current form, or various religions, are they advancing humanity toward the purpose of creation?

M. Laitman: Yes, yes of course, but it depends to what extent and how much humanity understands it and feels it and uses it.

Student: Is part of the correction of humanity, for each religion to find within it a renewed connection to bestowal? Or is this a form that has to be replaced altogether?

M. Laitman: I think that it needs to be replaced into that we will understand that only through connection between us and support above nature. That we will determine that all of us belong to a single form of connection called humanity; and in such a way we will already begin to organize ourselves.

Student: Idealism, naturally speaking, is a positive or negative thing?

M. Laitman: It's a necessary thing, it is necessary.

Student: Okay, but speaking positively or negatively, what makes an idealist one or the other?

M. Laitman: This is already according to the conditions of the society that depend on the time and the form of development.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (22:00) We started speaking, yesterday, with the entire world Kli about our vision. Based on what we read here, there was a phenomenal evening, I think. I want to ask about a person who is born, now, into a corrected society, inside this vision. What is his attitude toward religion, what will religion be for this person?

M. Laitman: That it is a part of the society that he was born into.

Student: Yes, but what will he feel relative to it? What is the level of commitment, connection to this religion thing?

M. Laitman: The measure of his commitment is according to the extent that he was born into a more religious society. Religious doesn't mean the way we see it now but in every society we have certain foundations that are related to religion.

Student: What is the religiosity of this new society?

M. Laitman: These are those laws that we study from the society and from nature, and from the surrounding world. That we want to know in which system of laws this world exists.

Student: Laws are a sort of science where the giver of the laws is not present. The religion usually connects to the Giver of laws.

M. Laitman: Why, what such giver do we have in religion?

Student: In regular religion, of course, there is no connection with Him. But they say that He said to do this and such and such. In science, we say there is nature, let's learn its laws, ignore where they come from. What is the new form of religion, new religiosity?

M. Laitman: The new religion is that we learn how to be congruent, matching the general force of nature, which is entirely to bestow. And it also compels us to be congruent with it, one-to-one.

Student: What characterizes old religions, not the new ones, is ritualism. There's all kinds of rituals tied to the connection with that Giver.

M. Laitman: Here, too, there might be rituals, but such rituals where we are holding on to actions that connect us and keep us together as much as possible. They give each and every one the feeling of the environment.

Student: So, we sanctify the connection between us?

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: That's the main principle.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (26:00) You told the friend that religion depends on who it benefits. There are those for whom it will do good and those for whom it will have an adverse effect, if I understood correctly. As religion expands, it sometimes takes on a positive form, sometimes a negative form?

M. Laitman: On the condition that it doesn't expand in a way that is forcing through pressure, or something, then we are able to say that religion won't be as a burden on each one.

Student: There are nations who accepted religion in a way that brought destruction to their environment. We, seemingly, want the wisdom of Kabbalah to expand. So, what to do so it won’t assume a negative form. We started to answer, perhaps, but maybe we can have a more precise answer. So, in the expansion of religion, we won't let it assume this negative form because we know that the initial religion, initially, was also the way we are trying to communicate it today.

M. Laitman: We need to disseminate the wisdom of Kabbalah as a method that helps us to get to know the forces, the world that exists above us, that influences us. And that it is worthwhile for us to know it, it's worthwhile for us to connect with it each time in a way that is more and more scientific.

Student: You answered because there's perhaps an internal reason. If you can clarify why specifically this form will be different than the form that existed thus far. What about this attitude that you mentioned will be the difference in making this wisdom, this religion accessible to the world? How is that different than what was done before?

M. Laitman: We want people to understand and later on feel in what world they exist. And how the connection of the person with the upper world will be similar to how one is connected to all kinds of forces that are near him.

Student: Why wouldn't it assume the form for the benefit of its own people or for its own benefit?

M. Laitman: Well, that's already an egoistic form, I don't think there's room for it. How can it be that in order for this will be mine and this will be yours, and this will be his. That is already taking a step back.

Student: Perhaps the fear that the connection between the person and the upper force that suddenly awakens in a person, his ego can take it and somehow turn it for its own benefit.

M. Laitman: I don't think a person can truly take it and turn the ego, which is the great general force in nature. We simply need to, well, it is best if we continue in our development through the influences of the upper force.

Reader: Item 15. (30:59)

If my words yield benefit, good. If not, the last generations will know why Communism was revoked, that it was not because it could not be sustained, as capitalists say, but because the leaders did not understand how to establish that regime. They erected a regime of egoism where they should have established a regime of altruism.

If anyone should disagree with me and say that education alone will suffice for that, I permit him to establish for himself a society based solely on education, but I will not partake in it. I know all too well that these are idle things. Thus, might he assist me in establishing a religion based society?

M. Laitman: Yes, this is his dream. Next, are we going to the next part?

Reader: Appendices and Drafts. (32:39)

Fourteen pieces that form appendices or drafts to the essay presented in Part One. Section One. This section contains inscriptions that appear to be headlines that the author wrote for his own needs toward writing the essay presented in Part One. It is a kind of first and general draft.

M. Laitman: Yes, Baal HaSulam had such pages, many pages with notes and notes and notes that were not connected to each other. He simply collected them in order to write later on one thing with the correct flow.

Reader: (33:26)

Critical Communism has never refused, nor refuses now, to fertilize its concepts with the abundance of ideological, ethical, psychological, and educational ideas that may be reached by studying the various forms of Communism” (Antonio Labriola (1843-1904), an Italian Marxist theoretician).1

2. “Were we to think today as Marx and Engels did, at a time when if they themselves were here today, they would be thinking otherwise ... defending the dead letter of the latter,” etc. (from Georgi Plekhanov’s (1856-1918) Introductions to the Communist Manifesto).2

The Positive

Evidence for the altruistic Communism.

For the rules of the altruistic Communist society.

For the international Communism.

For a beneficial religion.

Promoting the expansion of the religion.

Egoistic Communism precedes the altruistic Communism.

For the preservation of Judaism.

The Negative

The weakness of the regime of egoistic Communism (8).

Wars will not become obsolete (9).

Proof that egoistic Communism cannot last (10).

Motives from Zionism (11).

Israel must be a role model for the nations (12).

Concerning the egoistic regime (13).

Ethics (14).

10/2 14/8 14/4 Communism is egoistic along the way, although eventually it is altruistic.

8/1 3/3 The world should be divided into two kinds: egoists and altruists 0/0.

10/3 10/1 10/2 10/6 The majority of the public is always anti-communist.

8/2 For this reason, the communist regime must rely on bayonets.

13/7 The drawbacks in the egoistic Communism governance.

From 8/9 to 9/1 Communism will not save us from wars.

Communism must be international, from 3/2 to 12/1/2.

11/1 Strengthening Zionism, especially the kibbutzim, which are in danger of being canceled.

A communist rule over anti-communists will not survive on bayonets. Those idealists who are in power today will not be elected in the second generation, but rather egoistic managers, like them, and they will turn into Nazism.

I am speaking only to the workers, meaning the stragglers, and to those idealists who dedicate their lives for them. I do not, however, speak to the diligent because they will not be deficient under any regime. Even in the worst regime, they will not be deprived, and it makes no difference whether they are called “industrialists,” “merchants,” or “managers,” “supervisors,” or “distributors.”

Still, although the coupling of altruists with egoists was so successful in overthrowing the bourgeois government, it is utterly unfit to establish a happy, cooperative society, as the founders wish. Moreover, it is to the contrary, since that coupling of the idealistic communists with the oppressed egoists is bound to break up, leaving social chaos in its wake.

1) How much to leave?

2) What is the measure of enslavement?

3) What is the measure of freedom?

There is no correction to the stragglers unless they choose the committee.

3) The diligent will not let them out of their countries.

3) In the end, they will put to death the elderly and the sick.

1) When traders become distributors, the buyers will become receivers of charity.

2) Ownership and control are not the same.

3) In a compulsory regime, there will not be democratic elections.

2) In such a regime, the citizens are completely inconsequential in the eyes of the government.

2) In such a regime, the managers will enslave even more.

2) In such a regime, the employers will be able to conceal their cruelty.

Explaining Hitlerism

Reader: (39:58) Go back to excerpt number One?

Critical Communism has never refused, nor refuses now, to fertilize its concepts with the abundance of ideological, ethical, psychological, and educational ideas that may be reached by studying the various forms of Communism” (Antonio Labriola (1843-1904), an Italian Marxist theoretician).1

2. “Were we to think today as Marx and Engels did, at a time when if they themselves were here today, they would be thinking otherwise... defending the dead letter of the latter,” etc. (from Georgi Plekhanov’s (1856-1918) Introductions to the Communist Manifesto).2

M. Laitman: (41:04) Yes, there is nothing to say here. Did you learn at school?

Student: (Petah Tikva Center): Not this. Not Plekhanov.

M. Laitman: Well, actually, well, well.

Reader. (41:23) Title, The Positive

Evidence for the altruistic Communism.
For the rules of the altruistic communist society.
For the international Communism.
For a beneficial religion.
Promoting the expansion of the religion.
Egoistic Communism precedes the altruistic Communism.
For the preservation of Judaism.

The Negative

The weakness of the regime of egoistic Communism (8).
Wars will not become obsolete (9).
Proof that egoistic Communism cannot last (10).
Motives from Zionism (11).
Israel must be a role model for the nations (12).
Concerning the egoistic regime (13).
Ethics (14).

10/2 14/8 14/4 Communism is egoistic along the way, although eventually it is altruistic.

8/1 3/3 The world should be divided into two kinds: egoists and altruists 0/0.

10/3 10/1 10/2 10/6 The majority of the public is always anti-communist.

8/2 For this reason, the communist regime must rely on bayonets.

13/7 The drawbacks in the egoistic Communism governance.

From 8/9 to 9/1 Communism will not save us from wars.

Communism must be international, from 3/2 to 12/1/2.

11/1 Strengthening Zionism, especially the kibbutzim, which are in danger of being canceled.

A communist rule over anti-communists will not survive on bayonets. Those idealists who are in power today will not be elected in the second generation, but rather egoistic managers, like them, and they will turn into Nazism.

I am speaking only to the workers, meaning the stragglers, and to those idealists who dedicate their lives for them. I do not, however, speak to the diligent because they will not be deficient under any regime. Even in the worst regime, they will not be deprived, and it makes no difference whether they are called “industrialists,” “merchants,” or “managers,” “supervisors,” or “distributors.”

Still, although the coupling of altruists with egoists was so successful in overthrowing the bourgeois government, it is utterly unfit to establish a happy, cooperative society, as the founders wish. Moreover, it is to the contrary, since that coupling of the idealistic communists with the oppressed egoists is bound to break up, leaving social chaos in its wake.

1) How much to leave?

2) What is the measure of enslavement?

3) What is the measure of freedom?

There is no correction to the stragglers unless they choose the committee.

3) The diligent will not let them out of their countries.

3) In the end, they will put to death the elderly and the sick.

1) When traders become distributors, the buyers will become receivers of charity.

2) Ownership and control are not the same.

3) In a compulsory regime, there will not be democratic elections.

2) In such a regime, the citizens are completely inconsequential in the eyes of the government.

2) In such a regime, the managers will enslave even more.

2) In such a regime, the employers will be able to conceal their cruelty.

M. Laitman: (46:37) Next.

Reader: (46:41) Explaining Hitlerism.

Explaining Hitlerism

1) Religion is the only sound basis for corrections.

1) Religion is the only sound basis for raising the moral level.

1) Even if it is compulsory at first, in the end it is voluntary.

2) Communism must not be established before altruism has spread through the majority of the public.

1) Religion and ideals complement one another: One is for the few, the other is for the masses.

3) Due to man’s craving to work less and receive more, they will be able to assume a communist religion before an egoistic religion has encompassed a third of the world.

4) If you came to an island where savages destroy one another, would you hesitate to offer them a religion by which to save their lives?

5) Man will not be able to settle for dry commandments; he needs a philosophy that will explain to him his good deeds. This is what they have prepared.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (48:15) Baal HaSulam writes that he only writes for the proletariat, the workers, but not for the diligent because the diligent will succeed in any society. So, I wanted to ask, is there some part of humanity whose role is, on the one hand, to always rule the others; and on the other hand, there's no point in talking to them?

M. Laitman: If he has a desire to control, to rule others, then what can you talk to him about? Can you go either against his desire or for his desire, both are not acceptable by us, neither one. We wish for social development, for the time being, but we haven't reached yet, a state where we match for the last generation where it's understood to us what needs to be, what kind of social form has to exist. And that we are ready to invert and to become like it. So, there’s no one to speak to.

Student: I'm actually asking if it is deterministic: Meaning, if a person in the world, if it has been decreed that some group of people in humanity should be diligent. There will always be these diligent people who will be against. And we will actually be turning to the stragglers, the people who are not successful because only with them we can talk?

M. Laitman: I think that life will arrange for us the correct situation that has to be between us, among us. And we will be able to decide about things correctly; and it will be only through development without any pressure, without these ideologues, idealists. The entire method is eventually inverted into a religion and is accepted by, at least, a part of humanity as a necessary thing, an obligatory outcome. We need to, as a necessary outcome, we need to make sure that we maintain the principles of Baal HaSulam. And to see how all the rest of the principles simply fall out, one by one, and that's how we advance.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (52:00) Baal HaSulam writes to us that Communism should be international. The question is does it mean in the way that it expands. Does it make sense to take all the idealists in the world and put them in one place? Or actually in every nation, meaning, is there any meaning for nations, yet, in this process of the development of Communism? Until it becomes international, should every nation reach it on its own?

M. Laitman: I think that still has to be the first condition for the expansion of a certain ideal for them to speak a single language. To see things in one way, to be close to one another to some extent, they understand, they feel everyone in a single pot.

Student: The whole of humanity?

M. Laitman: No, no, no, their region or something.

Student: That is, there is an inclination, let's say in European countries to all mix together. And keep some kind of pluralism of equality among everyone. Maybe there's a bit of an inclination in that direction. So, the question is: Is this a form that can survive, and some good form would grow out of it, or is it bound to fail?

M. Laitman: I think that what happens in Europe is, especially, a result of its fears from the Russians. Not too far from them, there's a vicious country that wants to swallow everyone. That's what helps them, therefore, in their development, in their correct development.

Student: What do they feel in that they absorb, either they unite together, or they absorb other nations into them? Does it give them a greater force to deal with this threat?

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: For the sake of building the ultimate altruistic egoistic Communist society, this collaboration between nations, is it something that is correct? Or is it a malfunction?

M. Laitman: There is a great problem about it, of course, because they are doing it, for the time being, only in order to defend themselves. However, the Russians, the Chinese, they will rise a new form of connection. And it will not be threatening to the existence of other smaller nations who live around it.

Student: You mean the Europeans?

M. Laitman: Yes, Europeans, we mainly speak of Europe.

Student: So, you say that you sees that the next stage is actually a stage that will be successful, that it will come to a good connection.

M. Laitman: I hope so.

Student: And this form that you sees, let's say, on that continent of Europe. Is it a correct step towards the final form that we want to reach? Or according to what he says here, it won't help at all because we need religion, we need other reasons?

M. Laitman: I think they'll be able to make such changes, yes.

Question (PT 22): (56:30) It says that Israel should be a role model for the nations. What does that mean?

M. Laitman: That Israel must show to all the nations the form of future existence.

Question (PT 6): (56:50) In our days, can we reach a mutual guarantee between us? Or is it something that should only be implemented in the last generation?

M. Laitman: In truth, it's the realization in the last generation but, to some extent, we can have all kinds of forms and shapes, more or less. As we see it, even today in the situation in Capitalist countries. You have all kinds of organizations or such relationships that are very different compared to how it was before. If you take 100 years ago and today, you'll see a great gap between them.

Question (HEB 1 / Turkey 8): (57:48) A person in our time has reached a certain egoistic place. How should we be cautious towards the fact that religion is not a true religion? Meaning bestowal and it's actually distorted, so what should we watch out for?

M. Laitman: Religion is egoistic, it was always the case, and we shouldn't wait for it to change. And everyone should think of his family and his nation, so we need to care about it, not now. But we need to care about spreading the idea that Communism, the Communist ideas are the most suitable for our nature, to correct it to the correct form.

Question (Turkey 9): (59:3) What is the form of government or regime that is closest to human nature because Communism still seems far away, and contradictory, to our nature.

M. Laitman: Yes.

Student: What is the correct form now, in the time being?

M. Laitman: I don't know how to define it but consideration of each and every one as much as possible. That form has to attract us, has to draw us.

Question (PT 22): (59:38) How does egoistic Communism become altruistic Communism?

M. Laitman: Through negation, where, in the egoistic Communism, they can accept all kinds of forms that are opposite to the final form and to cancel it. Okay, what do you have next?

Reader: (01:00:26) We'll move on to the next part of the lesson.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (01:00:40) To summarize I see that the whole article actually engages in proving to us that we need a society that is based on religion. This is the only option to succeed is if we will establish a society based on religion.

M. Laitman: Yes?

Student: So, why are we focusing on writing a vision for the society instead of establishing this religion that we believe in. And defining this religion that we believe in and want to belong to? We need to define this religion.

M. Laitman: I don't know, I feel like I don't understand what Baal HaSulam wrote, I don't understand it enough. Even after reading everything, and maybe even getting excited about it for a few moments, I don't allow myself to publicize or talk about it. It's best for us to wait until the Creator, and nature, will turn us and position us and we'll see where we're headed.

Student: But, now we want to define ourselves, right? We want to establish a vision for our society, so what should we focus on? On the religion that we want to keep or the society that we want to have?

M. Laitman: I think society, that's more important; religion is more abstract.

Student: Religion should be abstract?

M. Laitman: No, no, no, religion has to clothe on us, correctly.

Student: What is the boundary between keeping the laws of society versus faith? How do they fit together, what is the boundary where, here, it's society and, here, it's faith?

M. Laitman: For the time being, we don't know, we cannot put our finger on those things. The laws of society somehow appear closer to us, and we can decide on them. But the laws of faith?

Student: Because it seems like faith, I mean, I know why I get up in the morning, what my work is. I know the forms that I have, what I need to take care of. It seems closer than dealing with the laws of society. And I, also, see that we're living in a pig, Capitalistic, corrupted society. And I can have inside of me laws that are abstract and completely disconnected from the society that I'm living in. So, maybe we need to define more faith, the religious foundation, than engaging in that because nothing is actually stopping us from making this definition.

M. Laitman: Yes, okay. Let's continue a bit more and then we'll decide, okay?

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (01:04:08) I want to continue the question that a friend asked. I understood that the article speaks primarily about what Baal HaSulam thinks about Communism. And what he does he want that will truly exist, later on, in the future. What can we deduce from this article that we can use now in our time?

M. Laitman: I don't know, I don't think.

Student: So, it speaks more about the future?

M. Laitman: Perhaps.

Question (Petah Tikva Center): (01:05:05) Why is it so difficult to agree that only the reforming light is the force that corrects the whole of reality, including humanity?

M. Laitman: Because it goes against nature.

Question (Asia): (01:05:30) Can there be a true religious ideal which doesn't start with recognition of evil, which is not against our nature?

M. Laitman: Again?

Student: Can there be a true religious ideal, which is not above reason, which is not through recognition of evil, which is not against human nature? Or will it then be a false religious ideal?

M. Laitman: Perhaps, yes.

Question (PT 29): (01:06:07) How is the building of a Communist society related to the correction and building the common soul?

M. Laitman: We'll advance in that direction and then we'll see.

Question (Latin 1): (01:06:24) What are the principles for a successful cooperative society?

M. Laitman: This is what we need to extract from these articles. What are we doing next?

Reader: (01:06:42) We'll move on to the next part of the lesson. We have a letter by Rabash. Before that, let's sing together.

Song (01:06:50)

קבלה מדיה

קבלה מדיה

איזור אישיכדאי להיכנס כדי להוסיף לייק לסרטונים, לשמור תכנים ולהירשם למינויים.

שלב חדש

שלב חדש

שלב חדש

קבלה מדיה© כל הזכויות שמורות 2003-2026 בני ברוך - קבלה לעם

איזור אישי
כדאי להיכנס כדי להוסיף לייק לסרטונים, לשמור תכנים ולהירשם למינויים.

קבלה מדיה
© כל הזכויות שמורות 2003-2026 בני ברוך - קבלה לעם