Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Are people fundamentally good or bad? Yeah, you know, righteous or wicked? Or is most of humanity, well, stuck somewhere in between?
Not quite saints, but definitely not complete villains either.
[00:00:13] Speaker B: It's such a core question, isn't it? We think about it. Stories revolve around it.
[00:00:17] Speaker A: Exactly. And it's the question that the source material for this deep dive really tackles head on. We're looking at these excerpts from a text just called chapter one, and it.
[00:00:26] Speaker B: Gives this incredibly deep, really nuanced, and honestly quite surprising perspective on human character, especially on what it means to be truly righteous, wicked, or in this state it calls intermediate.
[00:00:39] Speaker A: That's right. We've got this fascinating source here, Chapter one, and our mission today is to really, you know, plunge into it.
[00:00:45] Speaker B: Yeah, let's unpack it.
[00:00:46] Speaker A: We want to pull out the key insights about these states. Righteous, wicked, intermediate, according to this text, understanding. And along the way, we're going to have to confront some well apparent contradictions that the Source itself points out and.
[00:00:59] Speaker B: See how it resolves them. It offers a pretty profound lens to view ourselves and others, I think.
[00:01:03] Speaker A: Definitely. And it doesn't start small, does it? It kicks off with a really powerful concept, something about the moment a soul enters the world.
[00:01:12] Speaker B: It does. It grabs your attention right away. The Source grounds its whole discussion in this idea of a heavenly oath. It refers to a tradition found in other classic texts about how before a soul, specifically a Jewish soul in this context, comes down into a body, it's administered this solemn oath up in the heavenly realms.
[00:01:32] Speaker A: A pre birth oath. Wow, that's quite an image. What does the oath actually say? What's the soul sworn to do?
[00:01:38] Speaker B: Well, it has this dual structure, see, two commands, but they're rolled into one oath. And it's the second part that immediately throws a wrench in the works. You could say, okay, what's the first part? The first part is pretty straightforward.
Be righteous and be not wicked.
[00:01:52] Speaker A: Right. That makes sense. Strive for good, avoid evil. Standard moral compass stuff.
[00:01:57] Speaker B: Exactly fits with our general understanding. But then comes the second part, and this is where the Source points out the immediate paradox. The oath continues. And even if the whole world judging you by your actions tells you that you are righteous, regard yourself as wicked.
[00:02:11] Speaker A: Whoa, hold on.
Be righteous, but regard yourself as wicked. Even if everyone agrees you are righteous?
[00:02:20] Speaker B: Yes, that's the rub. You're commanded to act righteously, but internally, you must maintain the self perception of being wicked, no matter the external validation.
[00:02:29] Speaker A: That feels incredibly contradictory, like you're supposed to build a house while constantly believing you're actually tearing it down.
[00:02:35] Speaker B: It feels exactly like that. And the Source jumps right into this tension. And it links this oath to the whole purpose of the soul coming into a physical body to fulfill a specific spiritual mission.
[00:02:46] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:02:47] Speaker B: And the oath isn't just instructions. The text suggests the Hebrew word for oath itself is linked to the word for sated or filled, implying the oath actually infuses the soul with the power it needs.
[00:02:57] Speaker A: So the oath empowers the soul to be righteous.
[00:03:00] Speaker B: Right? It gives it the capacity, but then there's that internal contradiction. And the Source connects this directly to another famous teaching, doesn't it?
[00:03:08] Speaker A: It. It does, yeah. It points straight to a classic statement from the Ethics of the Fathers, I think, which says almost the exact opposite.
[00:03:17] Speaker B: Precisely from Ava. Chapter two, be not wicked in your own estimation. So you've got the heavenly oath saying, regard yourself as wicked, and this core teaching saying, do not regard yourself as wicked.
[00:03:28] Speaker A: How can both possibly hold? How do you navigate that? That's the puzzle the Source sets up right at the start.
[00:03:34] Speaker B: It is. And it's not just academic. The Source immediately dives into the not at all. It's presented as fundamen for authentic spiritual service. So the huge problem is, how can this divine oath given to empower you for your mission lead directly to a state of depression that blocks the required joyful service?
[00:03:52] Speaker A: It seems completely self defeating. You follow the oath, you get depressed, you can't serve properly. What's the alternative? Just ignore the feeling? Pretend you're not wicked?
[00:04:01] Speaker B: Well, the Source considers that too. What if you say, okay, the oath says, see myself as wicked, but I need joy, so I'll just compartmentalize. I'll accept the label, but not let it bring me down.
[00:04:10] Speaker A: Try and have both ways, kind of.
[00:04:11] Speaker B: But the Source warns this path, trying to consciously suppress the grief to maintain joy risks leading to something else. Irreverence.
[00:04:20] Speaker A: Irreverence, yeah. How does that follow from trying not to be depressed about being wicked?
[00:04:25] Speaker B: Because if you get too good at detaching emotionally from this idea of your own wickedness, even the wickedness of the oath tells you to perceive. You risk becoming numb. Numb to the whole concept of sin.
[00:04:36] Speaker A: Ah, I see. You might lose the healthy fear, the sensitivity to wrongdoing.
[00:04:40] Speaker B: Exactly. You could reach a point where sin or the potential for it just doesn't bother you anymore. It doesn't grieve you in the way it perhaps should.
[00:04:48] Speaker A: Okay, so it's a real catch 22 path one, crippling depression that hinders service.
Path two, potential numbness and irreverence. Towards sin itself.
[00:04:59] Speaker B: It's a profound spiritual and psychological binding, and it forces the conclusion that our initial, maybe surface level, understanding of righteous and wicked must be missing something.
[00:05:11] Speaker A: We need a better definition.
[00:05:13] Speaker B: That's exactly what the Source says. It states pretty clearly. However, the above matter will be more clearly understood after a preliminary discussion of the true meaning of righteous and wicked. We need its specific definitions before we can solve the oath puzzle.
[00:05:26] Speaker A: Okay, so step one is redefining these core categories. Where does the Source begin? It. It mentions a classic classification, right?
[00:05:31] Speaker B: Yes. It pulls in a well known discussion from a central text of Jewish law and tradition, the Talmud. This discussion outlines not just two, but five distinct types of people.
[00:05:42] Speaker A: Five types? Interesting. What are they?
[00:05:44] Speaker B: The Source lists a righteous man who prospers, then a righteous man who suffers, then a wicked man in whom there is some good and who prospers, and a wicked man who suffers.
And finally, number five, an intermediate man.
[00:06:00] Speaker A: Okay, so righteous and wicked, but subdivided by prospers or sufferers, and then this key third category, the intermediate. Let's start with the righteous. How does that initial rabbinic discussion define the two types?
[00:06:13] Speaker B: So initially, that discussion defines the righteous man who prospers as the consummate or complete righteous person.
They've reached a level where the text says physical suffering isn't needed anymore for their spiritual refinement. They're perfected. And the other one, the righteous man who suffers, is defined as the imperfect or incomplete righteous person. They still need some experience of material suffering in this life to cleanse and purify aspects of their soul while they're here in the body.
[00:06:39] Speaker A: Right. So in that first take, prospers or suffers describes their physical circumstances, which reflects their spiritual level. Complete or incomplete.
[00:06:47] Speaker B: That's the initial layer. But then the Source brings in other perspectives, particularly from mystical texts that add more depth.
It references a section of the Zohar called the Raya Mehemna.
[00:06:57] Speaker A: And how does that text explain the righteous man who suffers?
[00:07:01] Speaker B: It offers a different angle. It says the righteous man who suffers isn't just about needing cleansing. It's about someone whose evil nature, while still present, is subservient to their good nature. It's under control, but it's still there.
[00:07:14] Speaker A: Ah, so the evil inclination hasn't been totally dealt with.
[00:07:17] Speaker B: Exactly. Which implies, by contrast, that the righteous man who prospers has gone beyond just controlling it. They've actually managed to totally transform their evil nature into good. So the distinction becomes about the internal state of their evil inclination.
[00:07:32] Speaker A: That's a shift from external suffering to Internal makeup. Does the main body of the Zohar agree?
[00:07:38] Speaker B: Yes. The Source cites the Zohar itself as supporting this view linking prospers and suffers directly to the spiritual level based on the presence of evil Righteous who prospers Only Good inside Eagle transformed Righteous who suffers Lower level still harbors some controlled evil.
[00:07:58] Speaker A: Okay, so now we have these descriptions. Complete incomplete, and prosper suffers, potentially pointing to the same two levels of righteousness, but maybe emphasizing different things. This leads the Source to ask about the terminology. Right?
[00:08:10] Speaker B: It does. It asks basically why the redundancy? If complete righteous means no active evil inclination like prospers, and incomplete righteous means a subservient evil inclination like suffers, why do we need two sets of names for what seems like the same two states?
[00:08:26] Speaker A: That's a fair question. Seems like overkill. How does this Source explain it?
[00:08:30] Speaker B: It resolves this by explaining that the two pairs of titles actually refer to different aspects of the righteous person's service and inner reality. They're not redundant. They describe different dimensions.
[00:08:40] Speaker A: Different dimensions. Okay, break that down for us.
[00:08:42] Speaker B: So the terms complete righteous and incomplete righteous, the Source explains, relate specifically to the service of their divine soul, particularly their level of love for the divine.
[00:08:53] Speaker A: Ah, their relationship with gd.
[00:08:55] Speaker B: Exactly. The complete righteous person has achieved this perfect, serene state of what's called love of delights, a profound, effortless joy and connection.
The incomplete righteous person hasn't quite perfected that sublime level of love yet.
[00:09:11] Speaker A: Okay, so complete and complete is about the divine soul's connection. What about prospers and suffers?
[00:09:17] Speaker B: That pair, the Source says, relates to their work on the other soul, the animal soul, the part connected to our earthly drives and impulses. The righteous who prospers has totally succeeded in transforming the potential for evil within that animal soul into actual good. They've elevated it. And the one who suffers, the righteous who suffers, hasn't fully achieved that transformation. There's still, the text says, a vestige or a residue of amorphous, unformed evil harbored in the heart, linked to the animal soul. It's there, but it's controlled.
[00:09:45] Speaker A: Got it.
So one set of terms for the divine soul's love, the other for the animal soul's transformation.
Two different arenas of spiritual achievement.
[00:09:55] Speaker B: Precisely. It shows the complexity. And the Source is very careful to stress this lingering evil in the incomplete righteous or righteous who suffers is not about them actually sinning, not in thought, speech, or action.
[00:10:10] Speaker A: Right. You mentioned that. It's more like potential.
[00:10:13] Speaker B: Yes. An amorphous evil still harbored in the heart, an unrefined Potential, an impulse that hasn't been elevated, but it's entirely contained. They don't slip up.
[00:10:22] Speaker A: That's crucial. Okay, we spent time clarifying righteous. What about wicked in this initial classification?
[00:10:28] Speaker B: Well, according to that same rabbinic discussion the Source referenced, the wicked person is basically defined as someone who is judged, meaning ruled, motivated, dominated by their evil nature.
[00:10:38] Speaker A: Their evil inclination calls the shots pretty much.
[00:10:41] Speaker B: In their internal landscape, the evil inclination has the upper hand and directs their thoughts, words and deeds. That's the baseline definition here.
[00:10:48] Speaker A: Okay, so righteous ruled by good in varying degrees of perfection, wicked, ruled by evil.
That leaves the big middle category, the intermediate man.
The initial description was judged by both.
[00:11:03] Speaker B: Natures, yes, suggesting some kind of internal tug of war or balance.
But this is where the Source really challenges the common understanding and gives a much stricter definition.
[00:11:13] Speaker A: What is the common understanding it rejects?
[00:11:15] Speaker B: The common idea, which the Source explicitly mentions, is that an intermediate person is just someone whose good deeds and bad deeds are roughly equal. Like 5050 on the scoreboard.
[00:11:25] Speaker A: Sort of morally average.
[00:11:26] Speaker B: Exactly. But the Source uses a striking story from the Talmud involving two famous sages, Rabba and Abe, to show why this definition just doesn't work in its framework.
[00:11:35] Speaker A: Oh, right, you mentioned this earlier. Tell us the story again.
[00:11:38] Speaker B: Rabba, a Tr sage, declares about himself, I, for example, am an intermediate man. And his colleague Abbe hears this and reacts with shock.
Master, you make it impossible for any creature to live.
[00:11:51] Speaker A: Wow. What did Ab mean by that? Why was Rabba calling himself intermediate such a big deal?
[00:11:57] Speaker B: Abbe's logic, as the Source explains it, was basically this. Rabba was known for his incredible piety and constant Torah study. The text notes, his mouth never ceased studying. He was so immersed in holiness that tradition says even the angel of death couldn't touch him easily.
[00:12:12] Speaker A: So at exceptionally high level.
[00:12:14] Speaker B: Absolutely. So Abay says, look, if you at your level are only intermediate, then everyone else who isn't at your level must be wicked. And other teachings say the wicked are considered spiritually dead even while alive.
[00:12:27] Speaker A: So Abba was saying, if you're just average, then you're implying almost everyone else is spiritually dead. That can't be right.
[00:12:33] Speaker B: Precisely. It highlights how ridiculously high Rabah's level was perceived to be and how absurd it would be to think half his actions were sinful if he considered himself intermediate. The 5050 idea just doesn't fit someone like that.
[00:12:45] Speaker A: It really doesn't. So the Source uses this to argue that the common 5050 definition is wrong.
[00:12:51] Speaker B: Forcefully, it says that common understanding is incompatible with A much stricter definition of what actually constitutes wickedness according to various other traditional sources.
[00:13:01] Speaker A: Okay, what is this stricter definition of wicked that makes the 5050 intermediate impossible?
[00:13:08] Speaker B: The source pulls from several places. It explains that according to a precise reading, someone who sins any sin is considered completely wicked until they fully repent.
[00:13:19] Speaker A: Not just having sinned, but wicked.
[00:13:21] Speaker B: Yes, their status changes. And it's not just major biblical laws. Even violating a relatively minor prohibition set down by the rabbis makes one wicked. In this context, the bar is high, very high. It gets even stricter. Someone who doesn't sin themselves, but could have warned someone else not to sin and failed to do so. They can be termed wicked for that omission.
[00:13:42] Speaker A: Wow. Failure to prevent sin in others counts too.
[00:13:44] Speaker B: Yes, and the Source says all the more so, meaning even more definitively, wicked is someone who neglects a positive commandment they are capable of fulfilling.
[00:13:52] Speaker A: What's the main example given?
[00:13:54] Speaker B: The prime example, citing passages related to the importance of learning, is whoever is able to study Torah and does not do so. Neglecting spiritual study when you have the capacity is seen as a major lapse, akin to despising the Divine Word, and earns the label wicked.
[00:14:09] Speaker A: Okay, that definition of wickedness is incredibly rigorous. It includes omissions, minor infractions, neglecting positive duties like study. It's not just about active malice.
[00:14:21] Speaker B: Not at all. It paints a very different picture. And given this strict definition of wicked, the the Source draws a necessary and powerful conclusion about what the intermediate person must truly be.
[00:14:32] Speaker A: If they aren't 5050 and wickedness includes even neglecting study, then the intermediate person must be.
[00:14:40] Speaker B: The Source concludes, they must be someone not guilty even of the sin of neglecting to study Torah. Since neglecting study is considered wicked and it's presented as a sin, that's very hard to avoid consistently. The intermediate person, by definition, must be someone who succeeds in preventing all sin.
[00:14:56] Speaker A: Wait, all sin? Even the subtle ones like neglecting study.
[00:15:00] Speaker B: That's the conclusion the Source reaches. The intermediate person isn't failing half the time. They're succeeding in actively preventing themselves from transgressing at all. Even in these more subtle areas, it's.
[00:15:09] Speaker A: Completely different from the common understanding. So intermediate isn't average. It's a state of successful total sin prevention.
[00:15:15] Speaker B: That's the picture. It's a state of constant, successful vigilance, where the evil inclination is contained.
It explains why Rabba might see himself that way, not because he sinned, but because perhaps he felt he hadn't reached the absolute perfection of the truly righteous who had eradicated evil entirely. But by this strict standard, he certainly wasn't wicked either. He was in that zone of successful prevention.
[00:15:39] Speaker A: So it's not about the past tally. It's about the present dynamic being ruled by the good nature. Enough to stop the evil nature from manifesting at all.
[00:15:47] Speaker B: Exactly. A continuous internal battle where the good side is consistently winning the behavioral fight, preventing any expression of evil or even spiritual laziness. But the underlying evil potential hasn't been fully transformed, like in the highest level of the righteous.
[00:16:02] Speaker A: Now, the Source does tackle a tricky point, right? A quote from the Zohar that seems to say a righteous man who suffers has sins that are few. That sounds like it contradicts his whole no sin idea for the righteous and intermediate.
[00:16:13] Speaker B: It does bring that up. Yes, it seems problematic. If even the righteous have a few sins, how can the intermediate be totally sin free?
But the Source clarifies this.
That statement in the Zohar isn't presented as a definitive fact, but as a question posed by a sage named Rav Hamnuna to the prophet Elijah.
[00:16:32] Speaker A: Ah, it was a query, not an answer.
[00:16:35] Speaker B: Right. And according to the Source, Elijah's answer to Ravhamnuna confirms the other interpretation, that righteous man who suffers means someone whose evil nature is subservient, not someone who actually commits sins, even minor ones. Elijah's response upholds the stricter definition.
[00:16:51] Speaker A: Okay, so the text resolves that potential conflict by showing the context. It was a question exploring an idea, but the answer given fits the main framework exactly.
[00:17:00] Speaker B: And the Source adds a little note about how the Torah is said to have 70 facets or modes of interpretation. Which might explain why Robhamna even considered the few sins possibility. It was a potential angle, but not the one validated by the prophetic response. In this context, that makes sense.
[00:17:15] Speaker A: It shows how these texts can be interpreted in different ways. But the Source is building a consistent argument.
It then comes back to that common idea. Intermediate is 50. 50. Righteous is majority, good deeds.
[00:17:28] Speaker B: Yes. And it gives that common idea a specific label.
A borrowed name.
[00:17:32] Speaker A: A borrowed name. What does that mean here? Like a nickname?
[00:17:36] Speaker B: Kind of. It means it's a term used figuratively, applicable only in one specific context.
Reward and punishment.
When it comes to the heavenly judgment of a person's soul, the verdict is based on the majority of deeds. If your good deeds outweigh the bad, you're acquitted. And in that specific legal context, you might be termed righteous in his verdict.
[00:17:57] Speaker A: Ah, so it's like a legal ruling based on the evidence deeds. But it doesn't describe the person's essential.
[00:18:02] Speaker B: Nature exactly like being found not guilty in court doesn't necessarily mean you're inherently virtuous, just that based on the balance of evidence, you're acquitted. The Source insists the true definition of a righteous person, their actual spiritual quality or rank, is someone ruled only by their good nature, having fundamentally dealt with their evil nature.
[00:18:21] Speaker A: It uses King David as an example, right?
[00:18:23] Speaker B: Yes. Citing Psalms where David speaks of having slain his evil inclination.
That's the standard for true righteousness in this essential sense, which is way, way.
[00:18:34] Speaker A: Higher than just having more merits than demerits.
[00:18:36] Speaker B: Massively higher.
And the Source is blunt. Anyone who hasn't reached that state of eliminating or transforming the evil nature, even if they have tons of good deeds, is not at all at the level and rank of righteous in the true sense. And in fact, based on the strict definitions, they might not even qualify as truly intermediate either.
[00:18:55] Speaker A: So the true intermediate stops all sin. The true righteous has removed the source of sin within them.
[00:19:00] Speaker B: That's the framework. And the Source connects this demanding definition to that other saying about Kari, seeing the righteous were few and spreading them out through the generations.
[00:19:09] Speaker A: Does that connect?
[00:19:10] Speaker B: The argument is if righteous just meant more good deeds than bad, they wouldn't be few.
Most people in this context, are assumed to perform more good deeds than bad ones. Overall, the fewness of the truly righteous highlights just how incredibly high the real standard is, eradicating or transforming the evil inclination, not just winning on points. It's an exceptional achievement.
[00:19:32] Speaker A: This really does reframe everything. It's not about counting beans. It's about the internal governor, which force is truly running the show. Inside thoughts, speech, actions.
[00:19:41] Speaker B: Exactly. It shifts the focus entirely from the external scorecard to the internal reality. And to understand how this internal reality operates, how these states work, the Source says we need a fundamental concept about the structure of the soul itself, drawing from the teachings of the mystic Rabbi Chim Vidal.
[00:19:58] Speaker A: Okay, what's the core concept here?
[00:20:00] Speaker B: The core idea is that every person, the Source specifies every Jew, whether righteous or wicked here, doesn't just have one soul, but possesses two souls. Or maybe two souls and life forces is a better translation. It even points to a verse in Isaiah using the plural for souls. Regarding one person as a textual hint.
[00:20:19] Speaker A: Two souls inside each person. This is getting really fundamental. Tell us about the first soul.
[00:20:25] Speaker B: Okay, so the first soul described originates from what the mystical tradition calls the shell or the other side. These terms, kilipa or citra akra, basically refer to forces that conceal jedliness, like a husk Conceals a fruit or represent the realm opposed to holiness, the source of impurity.
[00:20:44] Speaker A: So this first soul comes from a realm that's inherently about hiding or opposing the sacred. That sounds problematic.
[00:20:50] Speaker B: It does. And this soul is identified as the life force of the physical body. It's clothed in the blood, giving life to our physical being. Referencing the verse in Leviticus, the soul of the flesh is in the blood. It animates us physically.
[00:21:01] Speaker A: Okay. Link to the body comes from this shell realm. What traits come from it?
[00:21:06] Speaker B: From the soul, the Source says, stem all the evil characteristics, our negative impulses, our base desires. They derive from four corresponding evil elements within this soul, mirroring the physical elements. Fire, air, water, earth.
[00:21:21] Speaker A: Right. You mentioned these connections earlier. Can you recap them quickly?
[00:21:24] Speaker B: Sure. Anger and pride come from fire because fire leaps up, symbolizing arrogance, appetite for physical pleasure comes from water, as water makes things grow and multiply. Frivolity, empty talk, boasting come from air because they lack substance and sloth, laziness, sadness come from earth, which is heavy and inert.
[00:21:44] Speaker A: It's a really graphic way to map our negative tendencies onto these elements.
[00:21:48] Speaker B: It is. It gives them a kind of symbolic origin. But here's the crucial twist and a key distinction the Source makes specifically regarding the soul. In a Jew, this same soul, the first one, can also be the source of good characteristics.
[00:22:00] Speaker A: Wait. The soul from the shell, the source of evil, can also produce good? How does that work?
[00:22:06] Speaker B: The Source explains that in a Jew, this first animating soul doesn't come from the purely negative, irredeemable shells. It derives from a specific, unique kind of shell or spiritual husk called noga. Noga means radiance or glow. And the unique property of this klepanoga is that it also contains good. It's a mixture, a mixed realm. Exactly. And the good element within this specific noga husk is the source of our natural, innate positive traits. Things like compassion, kindness, benevolence. It's connected to the symbolic tree of knowledge of good and evil. It contains both potentials.
[00:22:41] Speaker A: So for Jhu, according to this Source, this first soul, often called the animal soul, isn't just bad. It's a complex mix, giving rise to both negative urges and our natural sense of empathy or desire to help.
[00:22:53] Speaker B: That's the teaching presented here. Our innate good inclinations, like pity or charity, can actually stem from this very physical soul because of its origin in this mixed spiritual category.
[00:23:03] Speaker A: This radiant husk and source contrasts this with the souls of non Jews.
[00:23:07] Speaker B: It does, according to the specific teaching it's referencing the souls of the nations of the world generally originate from other types of unclean shells that contain no good whatsoever, intrinsically.
[00:23:18] Speaker A: And the implication of that difference, the.
[00:23:20] Speaker B: Implication drawn on the Source, citing a classic rabbinic comment, is that therefore, any good deeds done by them tend to be out of selfish motives or for self glorification, lacking that innate pure root of goodness found in Noga. It refers to the interpretation of the verse, the kindness of the nations is sin, as meaning their charity is often done for show.
[00:23:43] Speaker A: That's a stark distinction based on the soul's origin focusing on motivation.
[00:23:48] Speaker B: It is a very specific viewpoint from this mystical tradition. It's important to note, though, the Source does include an exception mentioned in those same texts. The pious ones of the nations of the world.
[00:23:57] Speaker A: Oh, okay.
[00:23:58] Speaker B: These individuals are understood within the system to have souls derived from that same shell called Noga, that radiant husk. And therefore they are capable of acting with genuine concern and pure motives, not just selfishly.
[00:24:10] Speaker A: Okay, so we have this really complex picture of the first soul, the animal soul. It powers the body, gives rise to negative traits from its elemental base, but also, crucially for Jews and pious Gentiles, in this view, contains innate positive traits like compassion, because it comes from this special mixed realm, the Noga husk.
[00:24:30] Speaker B: Exactly. And understanding this complex animal soul, with its inherent potential for both bad and natural good, provides the essential backdrop for understanding the intermediate state.
We also have the second soul, the divine soul, which the Source implies is the driving force for the good inclination, though it doesn't detail it as much in these specific excerpts.
[00:24:50] Speaker A: Right. The two souls, it all comes together. Now. The intermediate person defined so strictly by this Source, isn't just average. They are living out the battle between these soul forces.
[00:24:59] Speaker B: They're the person where the good inclination fueled by the divine soul, and maybe the natural good of the animal soul, is actively fighting and crucially, winning against the evil potential of the animal soul. Winning to the point of preventing any expression in thought, word or deed, even subtle neglect.
[00:25:14] Speaker A: That's the deep reality the Source paints. It's not a static score, but a dynamic state of conscious successful control.
The good is constantly victorious in the moment, stopping any sin. But the underlying potential for evil in the animal soul hasn't been fully transformed or eradicated like it has in the truly righteous. It's still there, needing that constant management.
[00:25:37] Speaker B: Precisely. The potential remains, demanding that vigilance.
[00:25:41] Speaker A: Okay, let's try and bring these threads together then. We started with that really confusing heavenly oath, Be righteous, but see yourself as wicked.
[00:25:49] Speaker B: Right. Which led to that impossible bind, depression, or irreverence it forced us to see we needed a deeper definition of the terms.
[00:25:57] Speaker A: So we dove into redefining righteous, wicked, and especially intermediate, moving past that common borrowed name idea of just counting deeds for judgment day.
[00:26:06] Speaker B: And we found the truly righteous is ruled only by good, having transformed or eradicated evil. The wicked is ruled by evil.
[00:26:13] Speaker A: And the true intermediate person, according to this Source's demanding standard, isn't 50 50.
They're the ones who successfully prevent all sin, even subtle neglects, through constant internal effort.
[00:26:24] Speaker B: Yes, and the foundation for this internal drama is the concept of the two souls, the divine soul pushing for good, and the complex animal soul originating from that unique radiant husk which contains both evil potential and natural goodness, providing the battleground.
[00:26:41] Speaker A: It absolutely shifts the perspective, doesn't it? Being righteous or intermediate isn't about an external label based on past actions nearly as much as it's about your current internal state, which force is actually in control inside you.
[00:26:53] Speaker B: It reveals a much more demanding yes, but maybe also a more dynamic and potentially empowering picture of the spiritual journey described in this Source.
That intermediate state is presented as a major achievement of internal mastery, not mediocrity.
[00:27:07] Speaker A: Which leads us, I think, to a final, pretty provocative thought for you, the listener, to mull over. If this text's true definition of an intermediate person requires successfully preventing any expression of the evil nature, even neglecting a positive duty like study when you could do it, where does that standard leave most of us? What does this incredibly high bar imply about the nature of the spiritual struggle for the average person?
And what does it really mean to strive towards these states as the Source describes them? It certainly challenges our usual ideas of who counts as good or average, doesn't it?
[00:27:41] Speaker B: It really does. It gives you a lot to think about regarding your own inner life and the kind of internal work this framework describes.
[00:27:49] Speaker A: Absolutely. And this deep dive, well, it's really just scratched the surface of what's in chapter one. There's clearly so much more richness and complexity to explore in this text.
