Tohu veTikkun and Iggulim veYosher

[lamed]

It says in many places in Chassidus (e.g. DM 81a) that Tohu is Iggulim and Tikkun is Yosher. But there in DM it repeats what it says in Kisvei Ari that nekudim comes from the ayanim of A"K, which is surely in yosher of A"K.

There are explanations of this in the meforshim on Kisvei Ari, but is there a source in Chassidus that deals with this in more detail?

[Malkizedek]

It says in Eitz Chaim and Otzros Chaim (both, Shar TNT''A) that Nekudos (or Nekudin as they're called in the Zohar) are related to the ears, not the eyes. Pardes, quoting the Zohar, says that the Nekudin "come out of Chochma," which is associated with the eyes. But it clarifies that "Nekudin come from the secret of the Moach [that is, Chochma], and establish the letters [that is, Binah]. So Nekudin/Nekudos are a memutza between the eyes/chochma and the ears/binah. All of that is within Yosher, as you pointed out.

The fact that the source for Tohu is Iggulim is something else, and is not a contradiction at all. I'll connect the dots between your two sentences before explaining how it isn't a contradiction: You mean that Tohu comes from the Nekudim in Akudim/Nekudim/Berudim. Akudim is described as the Or (already possessing the ability to be divided into 10, and actually being comprised of 10 entirely unified "lights") in a single vessel. Nekudim is described as the Or separating into 10 points that do not have hiskalelus, and Berudim is the beginning of hiskalelus/tikkun. That language is all a mashal, though. What it means is that Tohu is a product of pure ratzonos that aren't normalized against reality. Hiskalelus means that one realizes that he needs to give and take in order to get what he wants. A "Tohu" persons is a person who doesn't know how to compromise in order to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. The source of that confused Tohu perception is the perception of the world not as a composite whole made up of different and diverse parts (which one arrives at through hisbonenus/binah), but rather as a series of disconnected points (the way eyes dart from place to place, and focus on individual points without taking in the whole context).

Really, though, Nekudos are an intermediary between the etzem Ratzon (the single kli of "doing what G-d wants") and the complex system of the realization of G-d's will through developing a complex and nuanced view of the world (through the Talmud among other places, which teaches how to look at a problem from many different angles, and Chassidus which teaches how to connect the complexities of the world to the One G-d, and his ultimate mission). IOW, you need to always keep in mind the eternal Truth of the Torah (that's the 1/64th of arrogance that a Torah Scholar must have) with near single-minded dedication, while at the same time understanding how best to affect those truths within a complex and subtle world.

Last week, the maamor from the MR's Maamorim (the brown books, as I call them) spoke about this. I could tell you "just learn Imrei Binah," but that advice usually doesn't make anyone happy.

[Malkizedek]

Shar TNT''A:
Taamim --> Shem A''B --> Eyes --> Partzuf Aba (Taamim are hidden from sight and don't change the pronunciation/meaning of a word)
Nekudos -> Shem S''G --> Ears --> Partzuf Ima(Nekudos are hidden from sight and do change the pronunciation/meaning of a word)
Tagin --> Shem M''H --> Nose --> Partzuf z''a (Not hidden from sight, but do not change the pronunciation/meaning of a word)
Osios --> Shem B''N --> Mouth --> Partzuf nukvah (Torah sh'b'al Peh karinan, etc., completely revealed, and do change the pronunciation of a word - and in fact are the building blocks of language itself)

[lamed]

Originally Posted by Malkizedek

It says in Eitz Chaim and Otzros Chaim (both, Shar TNT''A) that Nekudos (or Nekudin as they're called in the Zohar) are related to the ears, not the eyes. Pardes, quoting the Zohar, says that the Nekudin "come out of Chochma," which is associated with the eyes. But it clarifies that "Nekudin come from the secret of the Moach [that is, Chochma], and establish the letters [that is, Binah]. So Nekudin/Nekudos are a memutza between the eyes/chochma and the ears/binah. All of that is within Yosher, as you pointed out.

How can Nekudim be a memutza between Chochma and Binah of A"K if it is nolad from a zivug of A"B and S"G of A"K?

The fact that the source for Tohu is Iggulim is something else, and is not a contradiction at all. I'll connect the dots between your two sentences before explaining how it isn't a contradiction: You mean that Tohu comes from the Nekudim in Akudim/Nekudim/Berudim. Akudim is described as the Or (already possessing the ability to be divided into 10, and actually being comprised of 10 entirely unified "lights") in a single vessel. Nekudim is described as the Or separating into 10 points that do not have hiskalelus, and Berudim is the beginning of hiskalelus/tikkun. That language is all a mashal, though. What it means is that Tohu is a product of pure ratzonos that aren't normalized against reality. Hiskalelus means that one realizes that he needs to give and take in order to get what he wants. A "Tohu" persons is a person who doesn't know how to compromise in order to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. The source of that confused Tohu perception is the perception of the world not as a composite whole made up of different and diverse parts (which one arrives at through hisbonenus/binah), but rather as a series of disconnected points (the way eyes dart from place to place, and focus on individual points without taking in the whole context).

Perhaps my question was not clear. I was asking how Nekudim can simultaneously be rooted in Igulim and a specific bechinah in Yosher.

Last week, the maamor from the MR's Maamorim (the brown books, as I call them) spoke about this. I could tell you "just learn Imrei Binah," but that advice usually doesn't make anyone happy.

Is there a mafteiach to Imrei Binah? The new print is nice, but unfortunately they left one out.

[Malkizedek]

Originally Posted by lamed

It says in many places in Chassidus (e.g. DM 81a) that Tohu is Iggulim and Tikkun is Yosher. But there in DM it repeats what it says in Kisvei Ari that nekudim comes from the ayanim of A"K, which is surely in yosher of A"K.

I think this paragraph has an error that I simply missed on my first time around, and in looking at your responses to me, I see that it might have to do with why our posts aren’t connecting. Tohu is not iggulim, and Tikun is not Yosher. Iggulim and Yosher refer to the two aspects of revelation after tzimtzum harishon (that is, the first tzimtzum that is for the sake of creation). Or Ein Sof (OES) is m’tzamtzem itself “to the side,” which then forms an “Igul.” Then OES is mamshich a kav from the “head” of that Igul. This in itself requires a lengthy explanation that I hope to get to later, but suffice it to say that this “event” (for lack of a better word) precedes all of seder histalshelus.

Tohu is not the same thing as Igulim. We first see Tohu during the formation of keilim in A’’K. Specifically, the first reference to Tohu is in the Or of Nekudim, which is a memutza between the Einayim of A’’K and the Oznayim of A’’K. These terms, in and of themselves are mashalim. So don’t let them confuse you.

The Einayim of A’’K refers to the shoresh of Chochma. Chochma is sometimes called “the point,” as you know. The reason is that there is no hispashtus to Chochma. Rather, Chochma is the entire idea’s source (perhaps best analogized to the subconsciousness) without any details. The eyes focus on a single point. From that point, they dart to other points. Look carefully at someone’s eyes as they “scan” from one side of a room to another. You’ll find that eyes don’t actually scan. They dart. Scanning would be the slow and fluid motion of a Rolex’s second hand. Darting would be the cheap imitation’s tick-tock, the exact opposite of the fluid scan.

Oznayim are the shoresh of Binah. Binah refers to the analysis of the matter. Since Chochma is not revealed intellectually, every Chochma requires a Binah in order to reveal the Chochma’s impetus: The “why” of the Chochma. In other words, if you find yourself drawn to a certain piece of music (or food, art, novel, sefer, Rov, woman, etc.) there is an underlying reason that may not be clear. Binah is the analysis of the piece of music so that the salient point that reacts with your Chochma (subconscious level) can be brought out, and music with similar attributes can be identified more easily (like Pandora… except not).

Specifically, the einayim of A’’K (which, in itself, has the “form of a man,” (Shiur Qomas Adam), and is therefore a bechinah of Yosher), all the way down to the Peh of A’’K, forms the shoresh of all of the keilim, and specifically the shoresh of the partzufim. (See EC and OC, Shar Akudim, generally, about the Oros of the Ozen and Chotem being nimshach into the Peh to form the oros and keilim, pnimim and chitzonim, of the Peh, etc.)

There is a reason that certain terms in Chassidus and Kabbalah overlap. They describe relationships. Tohu can’t be the same thing as Igulim. If it were the same thing as Igulim, it would be called Igulim instead of Tohu. But there are important commonalities between Tohu and Igulim. Sometimes a maamor focuses on the commonalities, and therefore does not differentiate between Tohu and Igulim. Sometimes the maamor is not focusing on the commonalities, and therefore differentiates between the Igulim, which are simple ratzonos that are completely makif over the whole of seder histalshelus, and Tohu, which is a bechinah of Yosher that is, in some ways, comparable to Igulim.

[lamed]

Originally Posted by Malkizedek

I think this paragraph has an error that I simply missed on my first time around, and in looking at your responses to me, I see that it might have to do with why our posts aren’t connecting. Tohu is not iggulim, and Tikun is not Yosher. Iggulim and Yosher refer to the two aspects of revelation after tzimtzum harishon (that is, the first tzimtzum that is for the sake of creation). Or Ein Sof (OES) is m’tzamtzem itself “to the side,” which then forms an “Igul.” Then OES is mamshich a kav from the “head” of that Igul. This in itself requires a lengthy explanation that I hope to get to later, but suffice it to say that this “event” (for lack of a better word) precedes all of seder histalshelus.

Tohu is not the same thing as Igulim. We first see Tohu during the formation of keilim in A’’K. Specifically, the first reference to Tohu is in the Or of Nekudim, which is a memutza between the Einayim of A’’K and the Oznayim of A’’K. These terms, in and of themselves are mashalim. So don’t let them confuse you.

What is your source that the nekudim form a memutza between the einayim and the oznayim? This doesn't make any sense to me, since the oros of the oznayim go out 'before' the nekudim go out from the einayim. Also, the Ari sometimes explains nekudim as having a shoresh in akudim, which is the conclusion of the oros of ach"p.

Also, it is not as quite as poshut as you say. There are iggulim / yosher in general, but there are also iggulim / yosher in every olam. In the end of Drushei HaNekudos perek aleph (in the M"B there) R' Chaim Vital explains that the nekudim are called iggulim because their iggulim went out before their yosher, and that the yosher only came together later with the tikkun. I guess this is the simple answer to my question, but I was wondering if this was discussed at all in Chassidus.

[Malkizedek]

Originally Posted by lamed

What is your source that the nekudim form a memutza between the einayim and the oznayim? This doesn't make any sense to me, since the oros of the oznayim go out 'before' the nekudim go out from the einayim. Also, the Ari sometimes explains nekudim as having a shoresh in akudim, which is the conclusion of the oros of ach"p.

I gave the sources alongside the explanations in my first post.

Also, it is not as quite as poshut as you say. There are iggulim / yosher in general, but there are also iggulim / yosher in every olam.

Correct. You had asked generally, so I answered generally.

As for a place in Chassidus, I will get back to you. I've seen these concepts in Chassidus. I just don;t recall where off the top of my head.

[lamed]

Originally Posted by Malkizedek

I gave the sources alongside the explanations in my first post.

Using the Ramak to explain the Ari can be difficult, especially when it comes to concepts that the Ari understood (or at least phrased) very differently than the Ramak.

The nekudim come out by way of the einayim, but they are not the ohr of the einayim itself. This is why sometimes (e.g. in Sha'ar TNT"A) it refers to the ohr of the einayim being much greater than the oznayim, but in other places (e.g. in the beginning of Sha'ar HaNekudos) it says that the ohr of the einayim is lesser than the ohr of ACh"P. This is because in the latter it is the ohr of S"G (and B"N) coming out by way of the einayim, not the ohr of A"B itself (although there is still a hashpa'ah from the ohr of A"B). This is explained in the second drush of A"K in Sha'ar HaHakdamos by analogy of chochmah of A"K with the chaya in NRNCh"Y.

Even that aside, I don't see how you can understand that the nekudim are a memutza between the einayim and the oznayim, because the oros of the oznayim come out before the nekudim and are on a higher madreigah. How can something be a memutza to something else that is on a higher madreigah?

With regards to nekudos in chochmah, the Ari often quotes the division of TNT"A as ta'amim in keser, nekudos in chochmah, tagin in binah, and osios in the zayim tachtonim. It is a famous question how this connects with the division of the 4 milui'im generally given as A"B in chochmah, S"G in binah, M"H in the 6 midos, and B"N in malchus, especially since elsewhere it says that TNT"A match the 4 milui'im.

[Malkizedek]

Originally Posted by lamed

Using the Ramak to explain the Ari can be difficult, especially when it comes to concepts that the Ari understood (or at least phrased) very differently than the Ramak.

Its funny that you would say that when this entire posts stems from a question the Tzemach Tzedek asks, and then answers, about the difference in approach between the Rama’’k and the Ari that touches on this very issue. I quoted the Rama’’k above directly. You can look it up yourself if you have a concern about the translation. The Ari never contradicts the Pardes on this point. Now, where I think you’re getting caught up is that these terms refer to relationships, rather than to essential concepts. For example, asking how TNT’’A can be Kesser – Chochma – Binah – Zayin Midos in one place, and Chochma – Binah – Z’’A – Nukvah in another place is sort of like asking how Sarah can be both Avraham’s wife, and Yitzchok’s mother. (What is she? A wife? Or a mother?!) Or, better yet, how the UK can be both a friend and an enemy of the USA (Simple, the Kabbalist responds: She was a friend in WWI and WWII, but she was an enemy in the War of 1812, etc.). (BTW, obviously if you're associating the Nekudim with the eyes, you're simultaneously associating Taamim with the Ratzon in the Galgalta, etc.)

The “Or” of the Eynayim (lets be clear, light doesn’t come out of the eye; light goes into the eye. These terms are mashalim) refers to the perspective of Chochmah as it is projected onto the world (in other words, the point of view a person will manifest in his intellect that colors his experience of the world. By the way, see Imrei Binah, at osios 12 and 13). But, as I said before, Chochmah doesn’t have osios in the conventional sense. I called Chochmah a subconscious image of the ratzon earlier; and while that is a good definition, I want to clarify that it is not a picture. A picture is osios – osios of sight rather than of language. Nonetheless, the mashal of a picture vs. the description of the picture is an apt mashal for the relationship between Chochmah and Binah: Since words cannot describe a true image, it is up to the listener to interpret the words, and build his own image of the description he is receiving. If the speaker leaves out unimportant details like the color of one of the characters' hair, the listener will usually fill in those details with images of his own that speak more to the listener's personality than to the image the speaker is describing. (If this is applicable to you, think of any time you read a book, and then made the mistake of seeing the movie adaptation of the book. No matter how well done the characters in the movie are, they cannot stand up to a good imagination).

Now, based on this, Or of the Eynayim can be understood as preceding the Oznayim (and, actually, this description is really unnecessary to understand how the Or of the Eynayim precede the Oznayim; the hierarchy is given in the beginning of Shar TNT''A fairly simply). The Oznayim (ears) hear words. So when one refers to the Oznayim in Kabbalah, what you're talking about is the intellectual faculty that interprets images and ideas into concepts that are capable of description and being understood logically and intellectually. The image of a fall landscape becomes the description thereof in a book, etc.; We tend to say that things that are "higher" are, by definition, "greater." But both of those terms describe relationships. Chochmah is higher than Binah in the sense that it is closer to a revelation of the essence (like the term Mathematics, with all of the connections it conjures in the mind of a mathematician is a "higher" expression of essential truth than a word problem asking you to predict when and where ducks flying at a specific and constant speed will pass a cow ambling at a constant speed in the opposite direction); and in that it is Higher, it is also "greater" so long as greater refers to the extent to which something approximates essential truth without revealing it. However, Chochmah is not "greater" than Binah if the measuring rod is the extent to which either faculty conveys the essence in a way that one can relate to it.

So while your mental image of an event will be more accurate than your description of the event, your description will be of greater use to a Judge and Jury than your image of it if you have to take the witness stand and testify as to what you saw and heard.

So your confusing assertions about this one and that one being on a "higher madreiga" and "coming out first," perhaps require greater elucidation, or perhaps a source, before I can respond to them fully.

As for where I put Tohu on the grand Atlas, it is based simply on what the Ari wrote. I didn't even interpret it. I'm just reporting. Perhaps if you explained yourself better, I'd understand your objections, and I'd be able to respond.

But simply put, Tohu is the inability to accept reality. It is generally referred to as being in the Midos of Imah (of A''K). But the shoresh is really much higher. IOW, when you form the image of what you want, and then when you reduce that image to some definition (ie, the hamshacha of Abba into Imah), the definition - not having the benefit of reality - is going to be problematic. For example: How do you define freedom? Freedom clearly is a word that has no simply definition, and will therefore function as a mashal for Chochmah. Lets say you define Freedom as "the ability to do whatever you want." Now you've reduced an ethereal concept down to a working definition (Binah). Great! The problem is that the application of that definition (Midos of Binah, or Tavunah) will run you into problems. Set aside the numerous and obvious problems that your doing "whatever you want," will cause for other people, who presumably also want to be free; and set aside even the legal consequences that would attach if most people did whatever they wanted without regard for the consequences (I wanted that candy bar, so I took it!). That definition of freedom will simply fall short if you decide that you don't want to work for a living (most people don't want to work for a living). If you don't work, you don't make money, you can't pay for the things you want, and therefore you can't "do whatever you want."

So in order to be able to "do whatever you want," you need to accept certain responsibilities. But, says Tohu, responsibilities are the exact opposite of freedom! That is true; but you need to exercise responsibility in order to enjoy freedom. That's reality (ie, Tikkun).

So where is Tohu? Technically, its in the middos of Binah of A'K. Elsewhere, it says that Tohu is "in" Yisroel Saba and Tevunah (IOW, in the application of Chochmah and Binah, sometimes simply referred to as the Middos of Abba and Imah), or, otherwise put, in the Or of the Nekudim.

My experience is that if folks don't have a grasp of what Kabbalah or Chassidus means, they get confused about the osios of Chassidus. Can you find a place in Kabbalah that gives a different location on the grand Atlas than I've given in this post? Of course you can! Since these terms describe relationships, all you have to do is change your viewpoint, and the relative locations shift. Most of Eitz Chaim is simply looking at the same picture from different viewpoints.

The Rebbe's comments on the theory of relativity are somewhat instructive here. It isn't that if you change your focus, the geocentric model becomes viable; its that there is no focal point until the observer imposes a focal point on his model. Torah imposes the Earth as the Earth as the focal point of the entire universe in terms of morality. It isn't just a viable model, its as natural a model as the heliocentric model that replaced it in the "Renaissance," or any of the the models that have long since replaced the Heliocentric model since that time. Mathematically, choosing the Earth as the center of the universe creates certain problems. But that does not in any way take from the truth of the Earth's centrality to Torah's focus.

I can't stress enough the importance of understanding what these terms mean rather than focusing on or arguing about their locations. The locations make sense if you understand the relationship described. But if all you're doing is juggling Kabbalistic terminology: who really cares if Tohu is in the Or of the Nekudim, the rings of Jupiter, or Boca Chita Key (pictured below)?

[Malkizedek]

Originally Posted by lamed

With regards to nekudos in chochmah, the Ari often quotes the division of TNT"A as ta'amim in keser, nekudos in chochmah, tagin in binah, and osios in the zayim tachtonim. It is a famous question how this connects with the division of the 4 milui'im generally given as A"B in chochmah, S"G in binah, M"H in the 6 midos, and B"N in malchus, especially since elsewhere it says that TNT"A match the 4 milui'im.

Also, the first way of counting TNT''A that you bring in this post matches the description of TNT''A and Ozen Chotem Peh in Shar Nakudim in Eitz Chaim rather than Shar Akudim which describes it in the other way (Taamim - Chochmah, etc.).

[lamed]

Originally Posted by Malkizedek

Its funny that you would say that when this entire posts stems from a question the Tzemach Tzedek asks, and then answers, about the difference in approach between the Rama’’k and the Ari that touches on this very issue. I quoted the Rama’’k above directly. You can look it up yourself if you have a concern about the translation. The Ari never contradicts the Pardes on this point.

To quote the Ramak to explain the Ari, you need to understand how what the Ramak is saying applies to the context that the Ari is speaking about. Given that the Ramak doesn't discuss the inyon of sheviras hakelim, this is difficult to do in this case.

Now, where I think you’re getting caught up is that these terms refer to relationships, rather than to essential concepts. For example, asking how TNT’’A can be Kesser – Chochma – Binah – Zayin Midos in one place, and Chochma – Binah – Z’’A – Nukvah in another place is sort of like asking how Sarah can be both Avraham’s wife, and Yitzchok’s mother. (What is she? A wife? Or a mother?!) Or, better yet, how the UK can be both a friend and an enemy of the USA (Simple, the Kabbalist responds: She was a friend in WWI and WWII, but she was an enemy in the War of 1812, etc.).

They refer to both absolute concepts and relationships. Imma relative to Abba is like Nukveh relative to Z"A, but it is still absolutely incorrect to say that Imma of Atzilus is Nukveh of Atzilus. Similarly it would be incorrect to call someone's mother his wife.

The “Or” of the Eynayim (lets be clear, light doesn’t come out of the eye; light goes into the eye. These terms are mashalim)

Light doesn't come out of the ears, nostrils, mouth or belly button either, but it's still part of the moshol.

So your confusing assertions about this one and that one being on a "higher madreiga" and "coming out first," perhaps require greater elucidation, or perhaps a source, before I can respond to them fully.

See the first perek of Drushei Nekudos in Etz Chaim. It says that the oros of the ACh"P came out first, followed by the oros of nekudim, and that ACh"P is from the ta'amim of S"G and nekudim is from the nekudos of S"G. The ta'amim of S"G are a higher madreigah than the nekudim of S"G.

My experience is that if folks don't have a grasp of what Kabbalah or Chassidus means, they get confused about the osios of Chassidus. Can you find a place in Kabbalah that gives a different location on the grand Atlas than I've given in this post? Of course you can! Since these terms describe relationships, all you have to do is change your viewpoint, and the relative locations shift. Most of Eitz Chaim is simply looking at the same picture from different viewpoints.

...

I can't stress enough the importance of understanding what these terms mean rather than focusing on or arguing about their locations. The locations make sense if you understand the relationship described. But if all you're doing is juggling Kabbalistic terminology: who really cares if Tohu is in the Or of the Nekudim, the rings of Jupiter, or Boca Chita Key (pictured below)?

You can't understand things on a deeper level via mosholim unless you first understand the osios. In Kisvei Ari, R' Chaim Vital is concerned with the correct nusach of what he heard from the Ari, and is concerned with stiros between different drushim that he heard.

[Malkizedek]

Originally Posted by lamed

To quote the Ramak to explain the Ari, you need to understand how what the Ramak is saying applies to the context that the Ari is speaking about. Given that the Ramak doesn't discuss the inyon of sheviras hakelim, this is difficult to do in this case.

I don't disagree that you need to be competent in order to apply something written in Pardes to something from R' Chaim.

They refer to both absolute concepts and relationships. Imma relative to Abba is like Nukveh relative to Z"A, but it is still absolutely incorrect to say that Imma of Atzilus is Nukveh of Atzilus. Similarly it would be incorrect to call someone's mother his wife.

All you've done here is give examples of misunderstanding the relationship. That doesn't compel anyone view terms in Kabbalah as absolute concepts.

Light doesn't come out of the ears, nostrils, mouth or belly button either, but it's still part of the moshol.

Exactly; and that's why I explained what the moshol of the light "coming out" of the eyes meant.

See the first perek of Drushei Nekudos in Etz Chaim. It says that the oros of the ACh"P came out first, followed by the oros of nekudim, and that ACh"P is from the ta'amim of S"G and nekudim is from the nekudos of S"G. The ta'amim of S"G are a higher madreigah than the nekudim of S"G.

You need to be clear about which of the above is more or less quoted, and which of the above is interpretation. Specifically, everything up until the last sentence is more or less right out of Eitz Chaim. The last sentence is an interpretation. I don't even think that R' Chaim uses the term madreigah at all in Shar Nekudim.

You can't understand things on a deeper level via mosholim unless you first understand the osios. In Kisvei Ari, R' Chaim Vital is concerned with the correct nusach of what he heard from the Ari, and is concerned with stiros between different drushim that he heard.

Shar HaNekudim is not about stiros between drushim. It doesn't say anything like that anywhere that I am aware of. When there's a difference in how relationships line up between Akudim and Nekudim (Taamim as Keser, rather than as Chochma/Eiynayim, etc.) the important thing is to figure out what is different about the relationships in Akudim and in Nekidum. Akudim is the creation of a consciousness totally separate from the world. Nekudim is about making connections to the world (the whole inyan of shvirah is the disconnect between the Ratzon of A''K and the world). So everything becomes outward focused instead of inward focused - thereby causing the relationship between Nekudim and the Ears to shift to Nekudim and the Eyes.

Also, as for the difference between the importance of understanding the osios and the mashalim: of course understanding the osios is important. But if you don't understand the mashalim, its a good chance you don't understand the osios either (like saying that the Shar HaNekudim is about reconciling stiros between statements of the Ariza'l).

[lamed]

Originally Posted by Malkizedek

All you've done here is give examples of misunderstanding the relationship. That doesn't compel anyone view terms in Kabbalah as absolute concepts.

I think you are talking about a different kind of relative and absolute.

You need to be clear about which of the above is more or less quoted, and which of the above is interpretation. Specifically, everything up until the last sentence is more or less right out of Eitz Chaim. The last sentence is an interpretation. I don't even think that R' Chaim uses the term madreigah at all in Shar Nekudim.

True, he does not use the word madreigah, but ma'alah and ma'atah are not an interpretation. He says that the shoresh of the nekudim is below the parsa in the pnimius of A"K, whereas the shoresh of ACh"P is above the parsa, and that the oros of the nekudim are lesser than the oros of ACh"P, and that when they first come out by way of the einayim they are botul to the oros of ACh"P until they go out beyond the oros of ACh"P. See the first few perakim of Mevo Sha'arim Sha'ar Beis.

But on another level I don't get your question. In every TNT"A, aren't the nekudos 'lower' than the ta'amim?

Shar HaNekudim is not about stiros between drushim.

I didn't say that it is. What I said is this:

"In Kisvei Ari, R' Chaim Vital is concerned with the correct nusach of what he heard from the Ari, and is concerned with stiros between different drushim that he heard."

Meaning: throughout Kisvei Ari, there are many examples of R' Chaim mentioning stiros between different drushim he heard from the Ari and trying to resolve them.

Shar HaNekudim is not about stiros between drushim. It doesn't say anything like that anywhere that I am aware of. When there's a difference in how relationships line up between Akudim and Nekudim (Taamim as Keser, rather than as Chochma/Eiynayim, etc.) the important thing is to figure out what is different about the relationships in Akudim and in Nekidum.

I think your distinction between akudim / nekudim here is shvach. In Mevo Sha'arim where I quoted, R' Chaim explains S"G as corresponding to binah specifically in the context of nekudim.

[Malkizedek]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by lamed

True, he does not use the word madreigah, but ma'alah and ma'atah are not an interpretation. He says that the shoresh of the nekudim is below the parsa in the pnimius of A"K, whereas the shoresh of ACh"P is above the parsa, and that the oros of the nekudim are lesser than the oros of ACh"P, and that when they first come out by way of the einayim they are botul to the oros of ACh"P until they go out beyond the oros of ACh"P.

Heichal Hanekudim (We keep on calling it Shaar HaNekudim) begins by summarizing the previous section:

Originally Posted by R' Chaim

והנה כבר ביארנו כי בשם ס"ג יש טנת"א והטעמים נחלקים לג' חלוקות שהם אח"פ.

So first we discuss the seder of the Taamim, within טנת"א. Then after a quick review of the "Hevel" of אח"פ, we are told that

Originally Posted by R' Chaim

ואלו השלשה מקומות הם בחינת הטעמי' דס"ג

Now that we're talking about Nekudim rather than Akudim, R' Chaim explains:

Originally Posted by R' Chaim

ואח"כ מן העין יצאו הנקודו' דס"ג ולכן אין כ"כ הבל בעין כמו בג' מקומות הנ"ל

Which is consistent with what I've been saying above.

Originally Posted by back to lamed

See the first few perakim of Mevo Sha'arim Sha'ar Beis.

I have loads to say about the wisdom of looking at Mevo Sha'arim for quick answers (or even not-so-quick answers) to questions that could otherwise be answered by looking in the heart of the text. But for arguments' sake, quote me what you're talking about. Lets have some fun.

(More later. I have to go make money).

[Malkizedek]

IOW (thank G for the iPhone) the ozen chotem peh you're talking about is the ach''p of the taamim.

[Rabbi_M]

Originally Posted by Malkizedek

Specifically, the einayim of A’’K (which, in itself, has the “form of a man,” (Shiur Qomas Adam), and is therefore a bechinah of Yosher), all the way down to the Peh of A’’K, forms the shoresh of all of the keilim, and specifically the shoresh of the partzufim. (See EC and OC, Shar Akudim, generally, about the Oros of the Ozen and Chotem being nimshach into the Peh to form the oros and keilim, pnimim and chitzonim, of the Peh, etc.)

Can I ask you to please spell out your point in a clearer manner (providing direct sources)? I think you might be making a mistake in the way you're learning the source materials you mention.

[Malkizedek]

Beginning of Shaar ACHa''p, I think. If that's not right, I'll have to hit the books. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know about it!

[Rabbi_M]

Thank you for the source. It seems you must be talking about the hago'oh on perek aleph where it writes about the idea of histaklus.

Can you please spell out your points in a clearer (more fluid) manner, directly connecting them to the original poster's question?

And can you please provide the context (IOW, the "relationships" - as you called them) for how you meant that statement I quoted above within your explanation to the question?

I notice from what I'm reading here that you're taking things from several different places (all bearing a different context - or "relationship" - and meaning), yet you haven't provided the principles (or the sources for that matter) for how you've structured this thought and pieced these ideas together to explain the sugya being addressed by the original poster.

Honestly, I'd like to follow your ideas through and even offer some of my own thoughts. But considering that this thread deals with fine intricacies and intricacies of intricacies, you'll have to address your ideas more fluidly and in a way that's more palatable to the reader. Right now I cannot yet say that I know what you're saying (which might even be the reason why I had felt that you'd made a mistake in your understanding the source material), so why bother. Let's please go back to "what specifically are your points and how (in particular) are you guiding the original poster towards an explanation relating to his question?" Sources would also be helpful. Nobody here has b'kius in Kisvei Arizal.

[Malkizedek]

I'll see what I can do. As I noted above, "if I don't work, I don't make money." Granted, at the time I was describing Tohu and Tikkun. But the matter is more than mere mashal. I'll try to get back to you tonight.

[Rabbi_M]

.....