{"id":270,"date":"2022-09-24T06:14:49","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T06:14:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/taliyah.org\/newdawn\/?page_id=270"},"modified":"2022-12-04T19:45:32","modified_gmt":"2022-12-04T19:45:32","slug":"path-of-perfection","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/taliyah.org\/newdawn\/articles\/path-of-perfection\/","title":{"rendered":"Path of Perfection (\u0635\u0631\u0627\u0637 \u0627\u0644\u0643\u0645\u0627\u0644)"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Long live the Taliyah, long live the people on the Path of Perfection…” – Naj.One<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lesson 1 of the Level of Adam: The ONENESS of Allah. There are 8 Levels, as follows: Adam, Nuh, Ibrahim, Ishaq and Isma`il, Musa, Dawud, `Isa and Muhammad. Each level has 8 lessons. Each level takes various spans of time. You begin the first level with one lesson per day for 8 days. The level of Nuh is, according to its namesake, 40 days in length. Some levels will take years, others decades. Perfection is found in walking the Path, not in anticipation of the Destination. The journey is the experience and the refinement process for socio-spiritual evolution…<\/p>\n

\n

Chapter 1: The Level of Adam<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Lesson 1: The Oneness of Allah<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u064a\u0645<\/b><\/span><\/h1>\n

Before any, there existed Something Formless yet Complete, before the Heavens and the Earth, without sound or substance – yet the Source of both – depending on Nothing, unchanging, yet constantly in-flux; in potentia<\/em>. IT was, is and will be, That which is ALL-pervading, unfailing. For IT there was no beginning and shall be no end. For IT is the Beginning and the End. Its End is in Its Beginning and Its Beginning in its End. By IT the entire Universe was given form.<\/p>\n

Why should we say \u201cIT\u201d and not \u201cHe\u201d or \u201cShe?\u201d Because IT contains both masculine and feminine in potentia. <\/em>Thus, in Semitic languages, \u201cHu\u201d is both used as \u201che\u201d and as \u201cit\u201d \u2013 because there is simply no linguistic gender-neutral pronoun in this language family. As such, we say \u201cHu\u201d to indicate the inclusion of both masculine and feminine potentialities within the Reality of the Creator. As it is written in the Tao Te Ching<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

The Tao begot one.<\/p>\n

One begot two.<\/p>\n

Two begot three.<\/p>\n

And three begot the ten thousand things.<\/p>\n

The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.<\/p>\n

They achieve harmony by combining these forces.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thus, all potential existence Exists within the Reality that is Hu. Imam `Ali, Amir al-Mu\u2019minin, the Qutb<\/em> of Allah, has thus said in his first khutbah, <\/em>or sermon, from Nahj al-Balaghah<\/em>, that \u201cthe foremost in the Din is the acknowledgement of Hu, the Perfection of acknowledging Hu is to testify Hu, the Perfection of testifying Hu is to believe in Hu\u2019s Oneness, the Perfection of believing in Hu\u2019s Oneness is to regard Hu Pure, and the Perfection of Hu\u2019s purity is to deny Hu attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus, whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognizes Hu\u2019s like, and who recognizes Hu\u2019s like regards Hu two; and who regards Hu two recognizes parts for Hu; and who recognizes parts for Hu mistook Hu; and who mistook Hu pointed at Hu; and who pointed at Hu admitted limitations for Hu; and who admitted limitations for Hu numbered Hu.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is no \u201cplace\u201d nor \u201ctime\u201d within which Allah exists. For space-time is a dimension of the creation, the construct of Allah\u2019s thought. What is there to say \u201cof\u201d Allah? For all that is \u201cof\u201d must come forth \u201cfrom.\u201d There is no- \u201cwhere\u201d devoid of Allah\u2019s Infinite presence, and there is no-\u201cthing\u201d originating from something \u201celse\u201d be-\u201csides\u201d Allah.<\/p>\n

The \u201cName\u201d of the Unnamable<\/strong><\/h2>\n

What is this \u201cAllah?\u201d It is That which in the Torah calls \u201cYHVH\u201d in the Hebrew language \u2013 a Verb, <\/em>not a noun. This YHVH is Perpetually-Ever-Existing \u2013 not \u201cthe\u201d Perpetually-Ever-Existing, but instead, Perpetually-Ever-Existing, as a Verb<\/em>, a Process. Thus, in Hebrew this Name is not a name at all, because Names are nouns, and This is a Verb. Yet, we refer to it and utilize it linguistically like a Name, so that we have a frame of reference and means of relaying conceptualization. It is thus commonly called \u201cThe Name\u201d or \u201cHa\u2019Shem\u201d amongst the Children of Israel.<\/p>\n

So, it bears repeating: There is no \u201cplace\u201d nor \u201ctime\u201d within which Ha\u2019Shem exists. For space-time is a dimension of the creation, the construct of Ha\u2019Shem\u2019s thought. What is there to say \u201cof\u201d Ha\u2019Shem? For all that is \u201cof\u201d must come forth \u201cfrom.\u201d There is no-\u201cwhere\u201d devoid of Ha\u2019Shem\u2019s Infinite presence, and there is no-\u201dthing\u201d originating from something \u201celse\u201d be-\u201csides\u201d Ha\u2019Shem. Thus, it is further written, in the Tao Te Ching<\/em>, that:<\/p>\n

\n

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.
\nThe name that can be given name is not the Eternal Name.
\nThe Nameless<\/em> is the Origin of heaven and earth.
\nThe named is the mother of ten thousand things.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ha\u2019Shem is the Infinite, we are the finite. Ha\u2019Shem is Independent, we are dependent. A cell within a body is NOT the Total Being; yet it IS within it. A drop of water is NOT the Ocean but it is a tiny, finite FACET of the Ocean. A grain of sand is NOT the Beach, but it is a finite particle of the Beach. We must understand this with discernment. The drops of water in the Ocean and the grains of sand on the Beach are Real, but ONLY when seen as part of the Totality. When limited to them\u2018selves\u2019 they are not Real. When a grain of sand says that it can stand alone as the entire Beach, then it is deluded by its\u00a0nefesh<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0nafs<\/em>\u00a0(ego-self), and has fallen into the false perception of duality, what is called shirk (polytheism) in Judeo-Arabic. Yet likewise, it is also incorrect to think that you are a grain of sand, separate from the Reality. Such a person perceives that around them are only other grains of sand, the Beach is real but it is off somewhere else where they have never seen, and \u201cwe\u201d are absolutely unrelated to It. Only Ha\u2019Shem is Self-Sufficient. Ha\u2019Shem is the Independent; \u201cwe\u201d are the dependent.<\/p>\n

Thus, Imam `Ali said further that: \u201cWhosoever said in what is Hu, held that Hu is contained; and whoever said on what is Hu held Hu is not on something else. Hu is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. Hu exists but not from non-existence. Hu is with everything but not in physical nearness. Hu is different from everything but not in physical separation. Hu acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. Hu sees even when there is none to be looked at from among Hu\u2019s creation. Hu is only One, such that there is none with whom Hu may keep company or whom Hu may miss in his absence.\u201d<\/p>\n

What does this mean? It means that Ha\u2019Shem\u2019s Nature is not that which can be defined by words or analogy, but through words and analogy we endeavor to provoke the Salik<\/em>, the Seeker, to think of That which\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0Ha\u2019Shem. In this way we define the Great Nothing of the Ayn Sof<\/em>, by describing that which is. This is akin to a painter who renders the shape of a \u201cthing\u201d by painting \u201caround\u201d the negative space which thusly defines the \u201cthing.\u201d In this way we describe the nature of the relationship of particles to their Wholes, so that in defining that which is illusory, that which is part of the \u201cconstruct\u201d of the Mind, we define the \u201cnegative space\u201d of That which is Real.<\/p>\n

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja`far who said when he was asked, \u201cIs it permissible to say Allah is a thing?<\/em>\u201d that he answered: \u201cYes, it is permissible because it excludes Hu from being ignored altogether and from being analogized or considered similar to the creatures.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Accordingly, it is written in the Torah that we are to meditate day and night upon the Reality of what we call the Shema`, <\/em>and its commandment that we relate <\/em>to the Verbal Reality that is YHVH as though <\/em>it were \u201cour God\u201d (Elohenu<\/em>). That is: \u201cShema` Yisrael, YHVH Elohenu, YHVH Echad<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05e9\u05de\u05e2<\/strong> \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3<\/strong><\/p>\n

What does this mean? The aforementioned Shema` <\/em>translates loosely to the sentence: \u201cListen Israel, Ha\u2019Shem your God, Ha\u2019Shem is One.\u201d There is much more in this sentence, than such an overly simplistic translation. First, we must look at the word Shema` itself. To be sure, it means \u201chear\u201d or \u201clisten.\u201d But it can only be contextually understood in relation to who it is instructing to listen\u2026<\/p>\n

Just as Rashi interprets the word \u201cYisrael\u201d as deriving from \u201cSarita,\u201d and Philo plays on the relationship of \u201cseeing God,\u201d Targum Onkelus translates Yeshurun <\/em>(Devarim<\/em>\/Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26; Yeshayahu\/Isaiah 44:2) as Yisrael<\/em>. \u201cAnd He was king in Yeshurun<\/em>, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together\u201d (Devarim<\/em> 33:5). A number of commentators have further noted the etymology of Yashar El<\/em>, including Yehudah Ashlag, known as the Ba`al Ha\u2019Sulam, in his commentary on the Zohar. He mentions this etymology,[2]<\/sup><\/a> as in the expression \u201cthe crooked has become straight\u201d (Vehaya he\u2019aqov le\u2019mishor<\/em>) (Yeshayahu<\/em>\/Isaiah 40:4). Rabbi Eliezer of Germiza\u2019s Kli Yakar<\/em> explains similarly that the term Yisrael<\/em> is composed of these two words; Yashar <\/em>and El<\/em>.[3]<\/sup><\/a> Israel are thus those who are right <\/em>in the sense of being just<\/em> or straight<\/em> in the Eyes of God<\/em>; those who are on a path (derekh<\/em>) straight to<\/em> God and Godliness.<\/p>\n

But as well, Yisrael<\/em> refers to those who see <\/em>God, because they are Yashar<\/em> and Yosher. <\/em><\/p>\n

We thus must understand that those instructed to listen<\/em> are those who are already assumed to have eyes to see. <\/em>Thus, those called to listen <\/em>are those amongst those who see<\/em> who have ears to hear. We thus must not gloss over the significance of Yishmael<\/em> and Yisrael<\/em> ben Yitzhaq<\/em>, and the relationship between them. A full discussion of this subject, from the Rabbinic literature, is beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. It will suffice here to mention it, and direct the observer to reflect upon it.<\/p>\n

Those with eyes to see are told to turn their ears to hear. What must they listen to? The reality that Ha\u2019Shem is, unto us, our God<\/em>. That is, what we regard as a god, for us, elohenu, <\/em>is the Tetragrammaton \u2013 a Verb \u2013 alone. What we conceive of as the noun of elohenu <\/em>is actually \u2013 for us \u2013 this Verb of \u201cEver-Existing\u201d. What else must we turn our ears to hear? That EverExisting<\/em>ness is to us our god, and this Ever-Existing<\/em>ness is One. That is, the Ever-Existingness is the Oneness of Existence itself; of Existing<\/em>ness itself. This then is a meditation on the Divine Reality, on what is called in Sufism Wahdat al-Wujud. <\/em><\/p>\n

Now when this sentence of the shema` <\/em>is written in a Sefer Torah, <\/em>it is obligatory for it to be written with an over-sized ayin <\/em>(\u05e2) at the end of the shema` <\/em>and an over-sized dalet <\/em>at the end of the word echad <\/em>(\u05d3).[4]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a> <\/em>If anyone knows the meaning of this for the \u05e2\u05d3 in the prayer, they should realize that it is beyond just a sect of gematria or any subtle meaning such as \u201cbearing witness\u201d; all of which are true, and interesting, but not the issue at hand. How do we make use of these letters? This is essential for mantric<\/em> use of the Shema`<\/em>, in Selah<\/em> or otherwise. Reflect upon the fact that originally the Shema`<\/em> consisted only of these words alone (Sukkot <\/em>42a; Berakhot <\/em>13b). If you know what the sages said to do with these letters, and if you know the method of ancient Selah<\/em> of the Am Ha\u2019Suf, <\/em>then the use for these letters should be clear to you.<\/p>\n

\n

And it was taught: Symmachos said: Anyone who prolongs the pronunciation of E\u1e25ad<\/em>, his days and years will likewise be prolonged. R. Aha b. Jacob said: This refers to the letter dalet<\/em>. Rabbi Ashi said: Moreover, one should not shorten the letter chet<\/em>. Rabbi<\/p>\n

\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thus, we read from Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne, the following on the authority of the eleventh century Babylonian sage Rabbi Chai Gaon the following lengthy passage, worth reproducing at length:<\/p>\n

\n

We have learned that one does well to shorten the alef<\/em>, and it is commanded to do so. We can deduce this from Rabbi Ashi\u2019s stipulation that specifically the chet<\/em> should not be shorted. The fact that he did not mention the alef<\/em> implies that one does well to shorten it. It has been stated that one should lengthen the chet<\/em> to a count of three and the dalet<\/em> to twice three. First, one should acknowledge sovereignty below and above while reciting the chet<\/em>, and then do the four directions during the dalet<\/em>.<\/p>\n

When contemplating the four directions, one should nod one\u2019s head first east, then west, then south, then north. We learn this practice from the Hilchot Yetzirah<\/em> (The Laws of Creation<\/em>), as taught there (chapter 1:13)\u2026<\/p>\n

At the fifth [stage], He chose three simple letters: yud, hey, vav<\/em>, and fixed them for His Great Name. He sealed the six directions with them. He sealed the heights and turned upward and sealed it with yud, hey, vav. <\/em>The sixth [stage] He sealed below and turned downward and sealed it with yud, vav, hey<\/em>. The seventh [stage] He sealed the east and turned before Himself and sealed it with hey, yud, vav. <\/em>The eighth [stage] He sealed the west and turned backwards and sealed it with hey, vav, yud.<\/em> The ninth [stage] He sealed the south and turned to His right and sealed it with vav, yud, hey. <\/em>The tenth [stage]<\/p>\n

He sealed the north and turned to His left and sealed it with vav, hey, yud.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Since we are taught this, it is proper that we acknowledge the sovereignty of the Creator of the Universe, during our recitation of the Shema`, <\/em>following the same pattern with which the Creator created and sealed the Universe. And our teacher, Hai, of blessed memory explained [ that one should prolong the recitation of E\u1e25ad<\/em>] long enough to motion with one\u2019s head in the six directions and thereby accept the dominion of Heaven. And Rabbi [Yehudah the Prince] would cover his eyes with his hands, [when facing his students during the recitation]. Our sages explain that he was protecting himself from having his students see his eyes when he was rotating them in the various directions.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thus, it is written \u201cGal<\/em> (roll) my eyes that I might see the wonders of Your Torah\u201d (Tehillim\/Psalms<\/em> 119:18), indicating the origins of raising the hands in front of the eyes at the conclusion of Salat<\/em> in the Muslim world. This method is also found in Daoist Zhan Zhuang <\/em>standing meditation, at the conclusion thereof, for the purposes of sealing the qi<\/em> in the body, so that it does not escape from the eye-sockets, following the pressurized reverse breathing and sinking of qi. <\/em>We can thus interpret these esoteric practices as a form of such energy-sealing, in concert, to an extent, with the Qi Kung<\/em> methods of Abu Lafia, which are beyond the scope of this work.<\/p>\n

One must NEVER say that a particle is the Whole. Ha\u2019Shem is the Whole \u201cwe\u201d are the particle. But Ha\u2019Shem tells us \u201cwe\u201d cannot divide the Whole of Hu; so far be it from the\u00a0Mamin, <\/em>the Mu\u2019min<\/em>\u00a0to consider anything as \u201cseparate\u201d from Hu. Thus, by analogy we can speak of a sand and Beach, or drop and Ocean, but these speak of what is, not\u00a0what is Not<\/em>. To approach the matter more appropriately, we must approach our relationship to Ha\u2019Shem as\u00a0that which is dreamed<\/em>\u00a0within the Mind of The Dreamer.<\/p>\n

Thus, Imam `Ali said, in his eighty-fourth Khutbah<\/em> or sermon of Nahj al-Balaghah<\/em>, that: \u201cI stand witness that there is no god but Allah, Hu is One and there is no partner with Hu. Hu is the First, such that nothing was before Hu. Hu is the Last, such that there is not limit for Hu. Imagination cannot catch any of Hu\u2019s qualities. Hearts cannot entertain belief about Hu\u2019s Nature. Analysis and division cannot be applied to Hu. Eyes and hearts cannot compare Hu.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hu neither begets (i.e. \u201ccreates outside of Hu\u2019self\u201d), nor is begotten (i.e. \u201cthere is Nothing else for Hu to be created out of\u201d). Ha\u2019Shem did NOT \u201cbreak off\u201d a piece of Hu\u2019self. For \u201cwhere\u201d would this piece be broken off too? What would lie between the cracks that would signify the \u201cbreak?\u201d Where else could Hu \u201cput\u201d those broken pieces other than within Hu\u2019s Infinite and Omnipresent Existence? Where else could the\u00a0Tzimzum<\/em>\u00a0be, but within the Mind of Ha\u2019Shem?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Primordial Adam<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The Midrash `Aggadah<\/em>,\u00a0Vayikra Rabba<\/em>\u00a0compares Moshe to three previous prophets, beginning with Adam, which it includes as the first of the prophets (1.9). \u201cThus, it is written: \u2018And Ha\u2019Shem called unto Moshe.\u2019 But had It not also called Adam? Why, it is already said, \u2018And Ha\u2019Shem called unto Adam\u2019 (Berashit\/Genesis<\/em>\u00a03.8)! Well, it is not undignified for a King to speak with his sharecrop.\u201d Direct communication with the Divine has typically characterized prophethood.\u00a0In addition to Adam, Noah and Abraham are compared to Moshe, thus\u00a0for this reason, in the Qur\u2019an, 3:30, we read, \u201cVerily, God has chosen Adam, and Noah, and Abraham\u2019s people, and Imram\u2019s people\u201d following this Midrash, as the Qur\u2019an so often follows the patterns laid down in rabbinic materials.<\/p>\n

The passages of the Qur\u2019an itself which indicate prophethood for Adam are no different than the traditional Jewish source material on the same matter. God speaks to Adam repeatedly, and for this reason also,\u00a0Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler explains that, even Cain was a prophet (Michtav Me\u2019Eliyahu<\/em>, Jerusalem. 5742, Vol. 1, p. 164). As for insights and foresight associated with prophecy, this is demonstrated in the ability found in Adam\u2019s correct naming of the animals\u00a0Naming battle (Midrash Rabbah<\/em>\u00a017:4).<\/p>\n

We see the indication of Adam\u2019s prophethood in the Torah\u00a0itself, wherein we read the verbal infinitive\u00a0l\u2019mareh<\/em>, \u201cto look at\u201d which can be read as the noun, preceded by a preposition as\u00a0l\u2019marah<\/em>, \u201cfor visionary revelation\u201d (2:9) For proof of this matter, we need look no further than\u00a0Seder `Olam Rabbah<\/em>\u00a0wherein Adam is specified as a prophet (21). We also read in\u00a0Shu`aib ki-Tissa<\/em>\u00a0that \u201cAdam received five crowns; he was king, prophet, high priest, his face shone in heavenly splendor, and God revealed Torah to him\u201d (39a). Thus, the sages taught in the Talmud Yerushalmi that \u201cEven that which a gifted student was destined to teach in the presence of his master was already revealed to Moshe at Sinai\u201d (Peah<\/em>\u00a017a). The Torah revealed at Sinai was the Torah of all things, and we see that the written Torah itself teaches that Abraham followed the Torahs (\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9) and\u00a0mitzvot\u00a0<\/em>of Ha\u2019Shem long before Sinai (Berashit<\/em>\u00a026.5)<\/p>\n

Who was this Adam? He was a perfect being, a\u00a0complete<\/em>\u00a0being. He was the\u00a0insan al-kamil<\/em>, he was\u00a0mushlam.<\/em>\u00a0He was created with a spirit, a neshamah,<\/em> that was both male and female simultaneously. Thus, we read in\u00a0Berashit Rabbah<\/em>\u00a08.1 and in\u00a0Berakhot<\/em>\u00a061a and\u00a0Eruvim<\/em>\u00a018a of the Bavli, that Rabbi Sh\u2019muel taught \u201cGod created man as a single creature with two faces and then split him in two.\u201d That is, the primordial Adam was both male and female and could show either face. In\u00a0Midrash Tehillim<\/em>\u00a0\u201cGod had fashioned mankind as one being with two faces, male and female, Then divided them into two\u201d (139:5).<\/p>\n

This division does not merely refer to the creation of the human Havah from the prophet Adam, but to the division of human beings from the perfect spirit of Adam\u00a0Qadmon<\/em>, the primordial, celestial Adam, into the world of duality and ego-identity, where one asserts \u201cI am a man\u201d and another asserts \u201cI am a woman\u201d. This notion of duality is instilled in us from birth, where we are told to respond to a name that imprints into us various intentions and ideas of who we are; whereby we are later told to distinguish ourselves and our identity from others.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Berashit Rabbah<\/em>\u00a0we read: \u201cNeither man without woman, nor woman without man, and neither of them without the Divine Spirit.\u201d (8:9) Why? Because man and woman are to perfect one another until the illusions of duality are destroyed through their interaction. Thus, the Torah teaches that \u201cthe two will become one (\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3)\u201d (2:24), not \u201cthe two will become\u00a0as<\/em>\u00a0one.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rabbi Eliezar disagrees with Rabbi Jeremiah, saying that a female witness in court \u201cis endowed with more understanding than a man\u201d. He cites as proof that a twelve-year-old girl is allowed to testify, whereas a boy her same age is not. Indeed, the Talmud teaches \u201cGod endowed women with more intelligence than man\u201d (Niddah<\/em>\u00a045b), whereas Rabbi Yose ben Yochanan also explains in the\u00a0Mishnah Avot\u00a0<\/em>that \u201cso long as a man talks too much with women, he brings evil upon himself, neglects the study of Torah, and in the end,\u00a0Gehenna<\/em>\u00a0is his portion.\u201d Why? Because if he is speaking with women, he is speaking in duality; he is not speaking in unity, in\u00a0yechidut<\/em>, in\u00a0tawhid<\/em>. He is speaking in dualism of \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cfemale\u201d; of \u201cmy penis\u201d and \u201cyour vagina.\u201d He is speaking in the context of gender identity, sex and ego-identity. Thus, it is taught that it is a mistake to teach a woman Talmud (Qiddushin<\/em>\u00a01:7), and that we should \u201clet the words of the Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to a woman\u201d (Sotah<\/em>\u00a019a) and yet the rabbis taught in the Mishnah that every man must teach his daughter Torah, both written and oral Torah of the Mishnah (Sotah<\/em>\u00a03:4). Why? Because a man does not see his daughter as a sex object, nor does he see her as separate from himself. He does not see \u201cmy penis\u201d and \u201cyour vagina\u201d, he sees Oneness, and in this Oneness, it is obligatory to teach Torah.<\/p>\n

Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paqudah explained this notion of\u00a0tawhid<\/em>\u00a0by imparting that \u201cthe Duties of the Hearts are to believe that the world had a Creator and that there is none like unto It; to accept Its Unity; to worship It with our hearts; to meditate on the marvels exhibited in Its creatures, that these may serve us as evidences of It; that we put our trust in It; that we humble ourselves before It; and reveres It; that we tremble and be abashed when we consider that It observes our visible and our hidden activities; that we yearn for Its favor; that we devote our works to the glory of Its Name; that we love It and love those that love It, and thus draw near to It.\u201d<\/p>\n

Brothers and Sisters, Ikhwah<\/em> and Akhawaat<\/em>, THIS is the beginning of Understanding\u2026<\/p>\n

CITATION<\/h2>\n

____________________________<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Al-Kulayni, \u2018Usul al-Kafi<\/em>, Hadith<\/em> 221, Ch. 2, h 7<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Lekh Lekha<\/em>, 68 items 183-185<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Kli Yakar Bereshit<\/em> 32:29<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Rabbi Avraham Gombiner, Magen Avraham<\/em>, on \u201cOrach Chayim\u201d 32.1; Ba`al Haturim on Deuteronomy 6.4 28<\/sup> The Siddur of Rabbeinu Shelomoh ben Rabbi Shimshon of Worms<\/em>, 93<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Tehilim<\/em>\/Psalms 84.5, cited in Berakhot<\/em> 32b; Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin<\/em> 91b<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> This translation by Mark Verman, from the printed edition of Sefer ha\u2019Eshkol,<\/em> corrected by referring to Paris ms. H-91A, 3b; cited in Verman 154<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Help SPREAD THE WORD!<\/h3>

Jeremiach was seated before his teacher, Rabbi Hiyya ben Abba. (Berakhot<\/em> 13b) And I, Asher ben Rabbi Yaqov ha\u2019Levi, heard directly from Rabbi Eleazar Ha\u2019Drashan, of blessed memory, they prolong the dalet<\/em> of E\u1e25ad<\/em> in order to acknowledge His sovereignty in Heaven and on earth and in the four directions.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n