while some are busy etc. I think that if we go any slower than we are going now, the whole thing will collapse, so I think the oace has to be picked up somewhat (of course this is MHO)
Mesilas Yesharim Ch. 6
While I understand why he says that zeal comes after watchfulness, as he brings from the possuk in Tehilim (34:15) "Depart from evil and do good" that first thing is to stop doing what you should not, and then do what you have to, would it not make more sense to say that while in importance "departing from evil" comes first, to actually really accomplish that you have to be also doing good at the same time, for if not it is like emptying a boat of water without really fixing the leak?
or is it really to separate stages? IOW is it that you work on one and then the other, or do you really have to do both at the same time?
Full Version: Zeal After Watchfulness
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Jan 13 2008, 01:16 PM) 
while some are busy etc. I think that if we go any slower than we are going now, the whole thing will collapse, so I think the oace has to be picked up somewhat (of course this is MHO)
Mesilas Yesharim Ch. 6
While I understand why he says that zeal comes after watchfulness, as he brings from the possuk in Tehilim (34:15) "Depart from evil and do good" that first thing is to stop doing what you should not, and then do what you have to, would it not make more sense to say that while in importance "departing from evil" comes first, to actually really accomplish that you have to be also doing good at the same time, for if not it is like emptying a boat of water without really fixing the leak?
or is it really to separate stages? IOW is it that you work on one and then the other, or do you really have to do both at the same time?
Mesilas Yesharim Ch. 6
While I understand why he says that zeal comes after watchfulness, as he brings from the possuk in Tehilim (34:15) "Depart from evil and do good" that first thing is to stop doing what you should not, and then do what you have to, would it not make more sense to say that while in importance "departing from evil" comes first, to actually really accomplish that you have to be also doing good at the same time, for if not it is like emptying a boat of water without really fixing the leak?
or is it really to separate stages? IOW is it that you work on one and then the other, or do you really have to do both at the same time?
I see it this way: If you go up a step on a ladder from ra to tov, you're going away from ra and doing tov at the same time. If you don't do good, your foot is hanging mid-air.
QUOTE
A principle that experience has shown to be of central importance to the work of Separation is that whatever tends to lighten one's burden must be examined carefully. For although such alleviation is sometimes justified and reasonable, it is most often a deceitful prescription of the evil inclination, and must, therefore, be subjected to much analysis and investigation. If, after such an examination, it still seems justified, then it is certainly acceptable.
Very true.
QUOTE(existwhere? @ Jan 13 2008, 01:37 PM)
I see it this way: If you go up a step on a ladder from ra to tov, you're going away from ra and doing tov at the same time. If you don't do good, your foot is hanging mid-air.
And if you are in mid air you will fall further down than you were before? in other words if you dont do good at the same time you haven't really gone up a rung? so you are saying that you DO have to do both at the same time, or are you saying that since going away from bad means you are going closer to good, you are essentially doing good at the same time (I am not sure this is how "doing good" is defined here, it seems that here it means to do an actual positive action)?
QUOTE
Very true.
I was thinking of quoting that part, but I thought that it deserves a discussion all by itself (and I think it has been sort of discussed before).
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Jan 13 2008, 01:44 PM)
And if you are in mid air you will fall further down than you were before? in other words if you dont do good at the same time you haven't really gone up a rung?
so you are saying that you DO have to do both at the same time, or are you saying that since going away from bad means you are going closer to good, you are essentially doing good at the same time (I am not sure this is how "doing good" is defined here, it seems that here it means to do an actual positive action)?
so you are saying that you DO have to do both at the same time, or are you saying that since going away from bad means you are going closer to good, you are essentially doing good at the same time (I am not sure this is how "doing good" is defined here, it seems that here it means to do an actual positive action)?
I think of it as that until you actualize it and do good, you've increased your potential for good but haven't really stepped up and become better. Basically yes, but not that you'll fall further down than before, the step is now below you.
Sort of, except a person can estrange from evil without actually doing something good. Consider thinking about architecture in a not-tahor place- that's estranging from evil without accomplishing good. Or is it?
QUOTE(existwhere? @ Jan 13 2008, 02:03 PM)
I think of it as that until you actualize it and do good, you've increased your potential for good but haven't really stepped up and become better. Basically yes, but not that you'll fall further down than before, the step is now below you.
Sort of, except a person can estrange from evil without actually doing something good. Consider thinking about architecture in a not-tahor place- that's estranging from evil without accomplishing good. Or is it?
Sort of, except a person can estrange from evil without actually doing something good. Consider thinking about architecture in a not-tahor place- that's estranging from evil without accomplishing good. Or is it?
hmm so I guess you are saying there ARE two stages 1) you first stop actually doing bad, which leads you and increases the potential to do 2) increase in good actions (and not be so lazy!).
I guess I was thinking that while yes you can first do #1 and then later #2 it really wont work. for example someone spends his or her time doing bad, they stop doing bad but have not "filled up" their time with good, would you not say they will "relapse" into spending their time doing bad? iow to really do #1 you would have to do #2 as well, it is not two separate stages?
well yeah I would think think about architecture in a not tahor place can be an example of "estranging from evil without accomplishing good" but I am not sure that is the same thing.
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Jan 13 2008, 02:18 PM)
hmm so I guess you are saying there ARE two stages 1) you first stop actually doing bad, which leads you and increases the potential to do 2) increase in good actions (and not be so lazy!).
I guess I was thinking that while yes you can first do #1 and then later #2 it really wont work. for example someone spends his or her time doing bad, they stop doing bad but have not "filled up" their time with good, would you not say they will "relapse" into spending their time doing bad? iow to really do #1 you would have to do #2 as well, it is not two separate stages?
I guess I was thinking that while yes you can first do #1 and then later #2 it really wont work. for example someone spends his or her time doing bad, they stop doing bad but have not "filled up" their time with good, would you not say they will "relapse" into spending their time doing bad? iow to really do #1 you would have to do #2 as well, it is not two separate stages?
Two stages, but for them to be stable they have to occur simultaneously.
They could relapse, but they could also find something good to do, and not relapse.
(another way of looking at this-
QUOTE
One whose wisdom is greater than his deeds, what is he comparable to? To a tree with many branches and few roots; comes a storm and uproots it, and turns it on its face. As is stated, "He shall be as a lone tree in a wasteland, and shall not see when good comes; he shall dwell parched in the desert, a salt land, uninhabited" (Jeremiah 17:6). But one whose deeds are greater than his wisdom, to what is he compared? To a tree with many roots and few branches, whom all the storms in the world cannot budge from its place. As is stated: "He shall be as a tree planted upon water, who spreads his roots by the river; who fears not when comes heat, whose leaf is ever lush; who worries not in a year of drought, and ceases not to yield fruit".
)QUOTE
well yeah I would think think about architecture in a not tahor place can be an example of "estranging from evil without accomplishing good" but I am not sure that is the same thing.
OK
QUOTE(existwhere? @ Jan 13 2008, 02:45 PM)
Two stages, but for them to be stable they have to occur simultaneously.
They could relapse, but they could also find something good to do, and not relapse.
They could relapse, but they could also find something good to do, and not relapse.
ok
QUOTE
(another way of looking at this- )
[....]
[....]
Hmm perhaps, but I am not sure, I will have to think about this (one is talking about wisdom and one is talking about evil, [unless you say "all wisdom is evil"
]).
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Jan 13 2008, 03:22 PM)
Hmm perhaps, but I am not sure, I will have to think about this (one is talking about wisdom and one is talking about evil, [unless you say "all wisdom is evil" ]).
]).If the aseh tov isn't greater than or equal to the sur meirah (which is machshava), the person can to relapse, as you said.
(and the tree will collapse easily)
QUOTE(existwhere? @ Jan 13 2008, 03:31 PM)
If the aseh tov isn't greater than or equal to the sur meirah (which is machshava), the person can to relapse, as you said.
(and the tree will collapse easily)
(and the tree will collapse easily)
hmm ok, I see what you are saying but I guess the question \difference is that by wisdom you are trying to retain it or make it meaningful, here I guess the question was if you can even really have "sur meira" without "ase tov", but I see what you are saying.
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Jan 13 2008, 03:38 PM)
hmm ok, I see what you are saying but I guess the question \difference is that by wisdom you are trying to retain it or make it meaningful, here I guess the question was if you can even really have "sur meira" without "ase tov", but I see what you are saying.
You have to have both. You can't grow roots without branches or vice versa (excepting when it first sprouts and isn't really a root yet, as it's not rooting anything to the ground.) You can't have branches without roots. Similarly, you can't have sur meira without asei tov, and although technically you can say one goes before another, there's no stability to sur meira if there isn't asei tov with it.
(I remember learning this in reverse somewhere, though. Will look it up.)
QUOTE(existwhere? @ Jan 13 2008, 04:03 PM)
You have to have both. You can't grow roots without branches or vice versa (excepting when it first sprouts and isn't really a root yet, as it's not rooting anything to the ground.) You can't have branches without roots. Similarly, you can't have sur meira without asei tov, and although technically you can say one goes before another, there's no stability to sur meira if there isn't asei tov with it.
(I remember learning this in reverse somewhere, though. Will look it up.)
(I remember learning this in reverse somewhere, though. Will look it up.)
Ok, that is basically what I was trying to say the whole time, so I guess yeah your right it is similar.
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Jan 13 2008, 04:13 PM)
Ok, that is basically what I was trying to say the whole time, so I guess yeah your right it is similar.
(why do I keep on remembering having learned somewhere the roots are the maaseh and the fruit the machshava, which doesn't even make sense here?)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.