Identity Structures and Moving through the Tree of Life
A Continuation from "Exploring a Kabbalistic View of Nothingness"

Scanning what I’d written yesterday, I had two thoughts:

(1) This depiction of the tree reminds me of what appears to be mythically god-like characters (Keter, Chochmah, and Binah or gods of Will, Wisdom, and Understanding) who are dropping down what looks like a double rope. When the rope hits bottom, it begins to reveal itself as the Tree of Life.

(2) I thought the process, as I’d written it yesterday, reminded me of how the IKH process works . . . with a client, we first make the space (TzimTzum) and within this space is a reflective (and often transparent) quality that enables the two of us to do the work. Usually we begin with wherever the client is in the moment: an issue arising, a concern, a curiosity. But there’s an identity that speaks, sometimes more than one. And, when anyone is stuck (fixed) in any one identity (Nega-Gevurah within Hod?), there is little to no movement, change, growth (Nega-Gevurah within Netzach?). The issue (content) reveals the foundation (Yesod), insubstantial as it may be, where one stands. One built that foundation, even when one might think others built it. Yet rather than blaming oneself, hating oneself, one needs to promote the change and growth that one needs to move from the stuckness – to grow up. The alternative is to remain a sprout that doesn’t have the energy to reach for the Sun and to receive the nourishment, the nutrients, necessary for growth.

Until one is aware of the Truth of the situation, the stuckness, the complete and utter imbalance in Life that this identification causes, there is no desire to change, no desire for growth. When this desire to change is accompanied with the awareness of the Truth of ‘what is,’ one stands in the midst of Tiferet. At this point, as one can sense the harmony of Reality Itself AND simultaneously realizes the wanting to become unstuck, one may be inspired to remember, to “check in” with Reality often (directly, in present time) in an effort to stay as awake as possible (conscious) of this point that includes both ‘what is’ AND ‘wanting to unstick’ (relax?).

Now, the harmony of Reality doesn’t need to feel like Heaven, like some might think. Who really even knows what Heaven feels like anyway? Actually, maybe a better way to say it is that one can be in-harmony with Reality. From a place of harmony, there’s no automatic reaction to the experience; there’s clarity; and, ‘right action’ is evident. Right action is crystal clear. Why? Because one is in present time. Automatic reactions come from past time, which is something one has learned from the personal historic past.

Gevurah-like Nature of Identity Structures
All identities are structures in our body/mind/soul. These structures are fixed and constrict by their very nature. Young children, however, play with identities. A young child can expand (1) personal self-boundaries, their sense of self, to include identity structures that they’re curious about exploring. This exploration is relatively easy for young children since their sense of self is tenuous until age six or seven – the structures that comprise the personality/ego is still forming until that age. So, to young children, these structures are as disposable as the cardboard boxes they love to imagine as forts and castles. In play, young children don the garments of an identity that they’re interested in exploring. The garments include not only clothing, like cowboy boots or ballerina tutus, but also the assumed character traits the child imagines might go with the chosen character-identity.

These character-identities created during play come and go easily for the young child, depending on the interest and explorative nature of the child. These identities are imaginary and are chosen by the child. Depending on the depth of imagination available, the identities can be perceived as real ‘temporarily’. In play, the young child temporarily leaves collective reality to enjoy a wonderfully imaginative world that exists in the child’s mind.

As so-called adults, our identities are also donned like garments, yet most of our identities are not chosen consciously, however; and, these identity-structures (fixed-structures) form fixed-personalities. The structure of the fixed-personality thickens and becomes more and more rigid with age. Within this rigid-fixedness, there is no room, no place for growth or for change. And through this fixed-personality lens, one participates in a fixed-reality without dynamism, flow, potentiality – a narrow, lifeless dead-zone. True Nature itself is obscured, hidden from the individual.

The very basis of an identity-structure foundation is formed from a mistaken identity -- “this is who I am.” Some time in the past, the child perceived something to be true based on a mis-perception of the reality of an experience. The child is never taught how to “check out” reality, so the identity becomes a fixed-structure in the personality. This personality retains a fixed-belief about the way reality is and his/her relationship with that reality resulting in the world being created in the image of this belief born from a quite innocent mis-perception.

To be continued . . .


(1) This capability to expand has a Hesedic-quality where there’s more space for creativity and flow.

Exploring a Kabbalistic View of Nothingness

Awakened at 3:33 a.m. thinking of nothingness and emptiness; and it was like a part of me trying to write poetry about it. And, then, my mind began looking at those two word-concepts and experiences. I thought of Ayn Sof Nothingness and Malkhut as emptiness.

In the Kabbalistic creation story, Ayn Sof (Nothingness) pulls back and makes space within Itself for creation to take place – Nothing-ness makes room for Something-ness. From my analytical (?) perspective, it appears that Nothing becomes One and then makes room for an Other – Two. There’s a part of me that asks: “How does that work?” And, another part answers: “Don’t even try to figure it out.” Well, the true part of each of these ‘voices’ in my head is that, yes, I’d like to understand, and yes, I don’t think I can ‘figure it out;’ however, I can be open to the potential of understanding as it unfolds – if it unfolds.

This Kabbalistic view of nothingness included a memory of my experience of Malkhut and emptiness as the last sephirah on the traditional Tree of Life. In this memory-concept, Malkhut is empty – has no light of its own – yet reflects the light from all the other sephirot. Malkhut has this reflective quality, like a mirror, or still water, or . . . hmmm . . . a question just arose: “I wonder if the qualities of clear transparency AND reflectiveness can be combined (integrated)?” As I look up from my writing, I notice a glass covering on the doors to our stereo cabinet. I can see a reflection; AND, I can see it’s transparency -- I can see the stereo equipment through the glass. So, my direct experience in this moment answers the question – yes, both qualities can co-exist together. So, this could mean Malkhut’s quality of emptiness can co-exist with its quality of reflectiveness. Could this be called transparent-reflectiveness? Or, maybe reflective-transparency? Interesting.

I’ve always thought of Malkhut as a container; and, in my perception of containers, they hold something, or nothing (could be empty). And, here’s where my distinguishing nothingness and emptiness came from, I think. I experienced emptiness as the inside of a container and nothingness as nothing, boundless nothing. I’m thinking of how, when one says: “there’s nothing in there,” that the reference is to there being nothing inside (within) and that is usually synonymous with empty.

Now the Buddhist “Emptiness is Form; Form is Emptiness” arises. And, with this Emptiness-Form-Emptiness I think “because boundlessness is not perceived” – the form, some boundedness, exists to hold the emptiness, as well as fullness . . . without the boundedness there is no form; then there is nothingness.

I just noticed the reflective quality of my cat’s eyes as she sits in my lap and looks up at me. This experience reminded me that reflectiveness is not always empty as well; it’s the surface that’s reflective, in this case, where with water and the glass door-cover, it’s the substance, the material (matter); however, in each example, light is necessary for the reflectiveness. I would not be able to see the reflections without light. Now the question arises: “Does the quality of reflectiveness need light?” I think so.

And, now I’m sensing this “bouncing-ness” that’s a felt-thought having to do with the relationship of light and reflection. There’s a bouncing-back-sense. This piece feels important but I’m not “getting it” yet. It does feel that it has to do with soul, personal consciousness, but I’m not getting the particulars yet.

I just got this image-thought-question: “What if Ayn Sof created Malkhut first?” And then, this scenario flowed out from that question:

The space within (that Ayn Sof created from Itself) had a reflective quality, so that in the presence of light (with the awareness of Itself), One could see a reflection of Itself. This reflection is an image. Assuming Ayn Sof was aware of the Light (since It is Light), It would see Itself, or the image of Itself.

Another thought arises: “We were made in God’s image.” Then, “We are a reflection of the Divine.” Then, “Everything we see is a reflection of the Divine.” Next, this image-thought of Ayn Sof shining a light on parts of Itself. Since Ayn Sof is boundless, I can’t imagine a “mirror” capable of reflecting boundlessness in total (an interesting limited perspective, possibly?). The Kabbalistic perspective, however, is that we could not perceive this totality without shattering. Is the “we” that would shatter our personal consciousness, our very soul? Or, is the “we” that would shatter our identifications created by our Ego-Personality?

Back to the “idea” of Malkhut being the reflective quality and the first sephirah. This looks to me like an upside down tree now. And, now the thought: “Out of nothingness, an awareness arose that included a desire To Know Itself and To Understand Itself.” This statement reminds me of Keter, Chochmah, and Binah. The question arises now: “How far back in time have human beings (wise ones?) been saying: “Know Thyself.”

Let’s look at this upside-down tree now as a process To Know Thyself:

1. Malkhut is the reflective quality; it reflects back as Light shines (awareness shines?) It may also include the quality of transparency. (depending on what?)
2. Yesod is a foundation and is the ground (of Reality? Being? Awareness?). Our perception of the ground upon which we stand, our reality, our Being depends on what? Or, is it Yesod that has the transparent quality? i.e., a glass bottom boat.
3. Netzach/Hod – a process of becoming – is like a seed planted in the ground. Within the seed is the blueprint of whatever the see is to become. And, within the growth and development process, there’s persistence and determination to continue, to survive at first, and then to thrive. There are stages in this process of growth and development. During each stage there are various identifications, i.e., a seedling, a sprout, a young plant, a mature plant. Growth can be affected by any number of conditions: container size, food, light, water. A healthy Hod is awareness of its own nature of becoming; awareness of itself in relation to its foundation; and, it’s movement toward the Light and growth (change).
4. Tiferet is the attainment of a natural balance, harmony with the Truth of the process of becoming with awareness of the present state within this process, which has evolved from previous states/stages.
5. Gevurah/Hesed is the contraction and expansion that is eternal and present within each moment of the process; it’s a Divine inhalation, exhalation, and the pauses in between.

To be continued . . .