The Voice of the Silence question
-
The commented version in Gems From the Equinox, on part 11 of fragment 1 the instructions for uniting the mind with the silent speaker explains to reject the outward appearance and arriving at the 'ideal'. This makes me think we are arriving at the Briatic quality of the object of the meditation. The comments later explain that Silent Speaker is characterized as LOGOS, ADNI, or IHVH. I've always attributed these God names with the world of Atziluth.
Is the author trying to say that the actual experience of perceiving the ideal is in Briatic in nature, but that experience flows FROM atziluth (i.e. 'spoken' by the silent speaker)?
Is perceiving the briatic nature of the object precisely equivalent to being 'united with the silent speaker'? My first thought would be to raise one's awareness to the world of atziluth, and that would be closer to being 'united' with the silent speaker. Am I wrong to think this?
Thanks for reading.
-
My first impression is that you are applying the standards of Y'tziyrah in your assessment of whether this is about B'riyah or Atziylooth
It's been a long time - probably decades - since I've read this work, and my copies are at home (where I am not)... so I'll just work from your post and assume you are representing the text correctly.
"":2vty6yd5]The commented version in Gems From the Equinox, on part 11 of fragment 1 the instructions for uniting the mind with the silent speaker explains to reject the outward appearance and arriving at the 'ideal'. This makes me think we are arriving at the Briatic quality of the object of the meditation."
I think you are pretty much correct, although I should mention that dropping the "outward appearance" only peels away Assiyah, and "The Ideal" was historically (ancient Greece IIRC) applied to Y'tziyrah. Nonetheless, I think you have the right idea about the general stuff here, and the broader picture is simply, "Get past outer impressions to something deeper, something internal."
"The comments later explain that Silent Speaker is characterized as LOGOS, ADNI, or IHVH. I've always attributed these God names with the world of Atziluth."
They are; but, then, on the other hand, they're just names, so they are inherently Y'tziratic. People can refer endlessly for years to "Adonai" without ever having an actual B'riyatic actuality on it, never getting past their psychological, convenience-of-labelling level. So I think it's no problem at all to refer to an Atziyloothic ideal and say, "Get past physical representations, and start moving inward, and then move past that level of labels and images and considerations and head for something deeper, and then..." etc.
"Is perceiving the briatic nature of the object precisely equivalent to being 'united with the silent speaker'?"
I dunno. That's an awfully Y'tziyratic way of thinking about it, I think. I guess my answer is, "Probably, yeah, more or less." "United with" with an awkward phrase, and here probably has no more precision than two people saying, "we're together now," which could mean a hundred different gradients of coupledness.
"My first thought would be to raise one's awareness to the world of atziluth, and that would be closer to being 'united' with the silent speaker. Am I wrong to think this?"
In a practical sense, I'm more interested in how you recommend someone "raise one's awareness to the world of Atziluth." Somewhat more than 99%, and less than 100%, of all people haven't a chance of doing that at any given moment in time.
But to back down to B'riyah for a moment - to the native state of awakened, aware Adepthood - "united with the silent speaker" can be conceived conveniently with sexual metaphors. The Atziyloothic reality is the lance, the Br'riyatic consciousness is the grail. In other words, God is the dick shoved as deep into your cunt as inhumanly possible. From the point of view of the grail, wouldn't you call that, "united with the lance"?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" In other words, God is the dick shoved as deep into your {****} as inhumanly possible.
"LOL Jim.
