Chardal has been putting forth his arguments for a mystical understanding of Judaism on his blog and disagreed with my earlier post where I described the two Theologies of the Rishonim and openly sided with the rational approach.
His arguments are not new and it might work for some especially his brand of rational mysticism. I personally cannot deal with it. I find it to be a fantasy. I tried working with it in my younger years and read Ramban, Rabbeinu Bachya (which I periodically do just to better understand the rationalist schools when contrasted with it), Rav Tzodok, Maharal, and Sifrei Chassidus such as Sfas Emes, Shem Mishmuel, Tanya and Torah Ohr and ended up with nothing. It is only when I turned to Rambam and his school that Judaism took in me. I cannot live with anything but "Ein lo ledayan ela mah sheinav ro'ot". I have read Rav Kook perfunctorily as I come from a Chareidi background, right wing Yeshivos are my foundation, and by the time I got around to it I was already elsewhere. I am planning to go back to Rav Kook because I suspect he is trying to bridge the two worlds.
Regarding miracles Chardal commented: What is the contradiction between science and miracles? They are by definition out of the realm of science. Rav Kook advocated the stance that Chazal relied on the science of their time (I believe that Rav Dessler did so as well) while not closing the door for genuine miracles to occur.
I do not believe that HKBH ever changes nature. Not that He cannot but He does not. The world and its progression are from His perspective always in His timeless present. He is perfect by definition, so adjustments, which miracles are, reacting to unforeseen circumstances, would indicate imperfection. All "miracles" are in reality natural occurrences that are very rare, and are therefore seen as such. The time the "miracles" occur has been preset at Creation, and it is man's job to know about them and take advantage of them just like any other scientific discovery. Kriyas Yam Suf was a natural event that Moshe knew how to take advantage of.
The minute you bring miracles into play, where nature is changed, you deny all science. Science is based on empirical observation and if a phenomena, rare as it is, occurs it must be taken into account and a theory adjusted to explain it. Mysticism kills that ability, and therefore discourages science. It denies the reality of our world. The idea makes me schizophrenic and leaves me cold to such a religion
Religion is how we view our world and bring HKBH into it from our perspective. It is like science, an empirical endeavor. We take a fact and try to fit into the theory that HKBH created the world. We adjust the theory to fit the fact and not the other way round. That intellectual effort is the greatest Avodah a man can do. He looks for HKBH’s traces in the Briah - Creation.
interestingly enough, I recently started to wonder if kabbalah is more rational than people give it credit for.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I started wondering is because I noticed that Spinoza (who I understand to be very rational) quotes kabbalah in his philosophy and he had a book of Kabbalah in his small personal library (most of his books were science books.)
perhaps, we as outsiders, just don't understand their esoteric symbolism to appreciate it.
David,
ReplyDeleteI don't want you to think that I do not appreciate that rationalism works better for some people than the esoteric school. That different people have different approaches to understanding the world is almost axiomatic.
I think the real issue of contention regarding miracles is not how Hashem created this world but rather it is a machloket regarding how Hashem interact with the world "after" its creation. It's a question of hashgacha.
I will concede to you that for a more simple mind, esoteric thought could inhibit any natural drive to scientific investigation. My contention, however, is that this is not necessarily so. In fact, in its most complete form, science itself is revealed to be a portal of understanding more about Hashem's wonders.
What is the difference then? I believe it is regarding the degree of "will" that Hashem applies to the running of the world. The mystic will always see everything as a manifestation of something close to the most profound essence of Hashem (please notice that I stay away from discussing THE essence of Hashem - the mystical school agrees that this is not graspable). The rationalist school as I understand it sees the happenings of the world as something that is muchrach through a long chain of cause and effect at the end of which is Hashem's will.
The reason I believe that this approach is somewhat lacking is because it somewhat collapses whenever in history there occurs a disconnect between perceived physical reality and perceived/revelatory spiritual reality - in the esoteric school, such a disconnect serves a function in and of itself. In the rationalist school as I understand it, such a disconnect leads to great cognitive strife.
I am eagerly awaiting your clarifications on my lack of understanding of the Rambam :)
I am planning to go back to Rav Kook because I suspect he is trying to bridge the two worlds.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely correct. However it is difficult to bridge to two from the rationalist side. From the essoteric side, there is much room for paradox so it is not difficutl to incorporate rationalism to some extent.
>The mystic will always see everything as a manifestation of something close to the most profound essence of Hashem
ReplyDeleteTo me this sounds like " Kol devorim atem shomim utemunah einchem ro'im zulosi kol" I dont even comprehend the words. What is a "manifestation"? is it the resulting act? If so it is physical and that was created at breishis. What is the "profound essence"? It is beautiful poetic language but does not grab my mind. Maybe i lack imagination, but I believe one should limit it when dealing with religion.
> whenever in history there occurs a disconnect between perceived physical reality and perceived/revelatory spiritual reality
ReplyDeleteWhat does this mean? What is a perceived/revelatory spiruitual reality? How can something spiritual be a reality? How do I know that "revealatory" is anything more than the figment of imagination? How can you call that reality/
I am not trying to be difficult just point out that our semantics are so far apart that I don't know how one bridges the gap. I believe that the kabbalah of the Rishonim did that and I am hoping that Rav Kook will help bridge it. I however am skeptical at this point, about Rav kook. I believe that anyone that accepts AQrizal and his followers is misguided and lives in a dangerous world of fantasy.
How can something spiritual be a reality? How do I know that "revelatory" is anything more than the figment of imagination? How can you call that reality
ReplyDeleteBecause reality must include in it the realm of the speculative. Since mystic thought starts with the assumption that all of creation is purposeful, therefore, all thoughts, even ones we reject on a practical level and even ones we label as evil must, by definition, serve a purpose and in this way - their purposefulness - they are real.
We use our rational faculties to try and sort out those ideas whose usefulness is in their rejection by us. We also try to integrate those ideas which can paint a greater picture of both our physical and spiritual existence.
Our spiritual existence from this vantage point is something we assume a-priori. We "sense" the spiritual with our soul in a way parallel to our physical senses. Once the existence of such a world is assumed, then we must have a model to understand it with. This model is the Torah in all of its manifestations throughout history.
Thus, revelation becomes that spiritual model which the nation as a whole grasped together and which defines the ground rules for our collective spiritual life. Within this model, we each have flexibility to find more sublime understandings of our spiritual reality.
What we end up with is a system which by definition is true and is not subject to empirical methodology. This is the essential strength of the esoteric school.
Each person then must exercise their faculties of will in order to choose to either be integrated into this model or exclude themselves from it.
All this of course depends on the realization that we can never truly bridge the gap between our subjective perceived reality and the objective truth.
>Because reality must include in it the realm of the speculative.
ReplyDeleteSpeculative can only be useful if ultimately it can be proven empirically. Pure speculation is fantasy to my mind. We must therefore limit metaphysical speculation to one thing only - that we know that anything we say, or think about God, including the actions He is not that. All we can do is look at the results and admit that He is their cause.
> evil must, by definition, serve a purpose and in this way - their purposefulness - they are real
ReplyDeletethere is no purpose in evil. What we consider evil is lack of existence or destruction. There is no purpose in non existence.
>We use our rational faculties to try and sort out those ideas whose usefulness is in their rejection by us.
ReplyDeleteIch farshtei nisht.
>Our spiritual existence from this vantage point is something we assume a-priori. We "sense" the spiritual with our soul in a way parallel to our physical senses.
Physical senses I can touch and feel with my senses. Spiritual existence is a figment of my imagination.
>What we end up with is a system which by definition is true and is not subject to empirical methodology.
If there is no empirical methodology it does not exist.
>All this of course depends on the realization that we can never truly bridge the gap between our subjective perceived reality and the objective truth.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing to bridge. As far as we are concerned there is only one reality the one we know, and that is the one we are expected to deal with. "Lo Bashamaim hee"
Speculative can only be useful if ultimately it can be proven empirically. Pure speculation is fantasy to my mind. We must therefore limit metaphysical speculation to one thing only - that we know that anything we say, or think about God, including the actions He is not that. All we can do is look at the results and admit that He is their cause.
ReplyDeleteYou are correctly representing the Rambam's approach. This is not, however, the mainstream Jewish approach to speculative thought. At least not in the last 700 years. I actually believe that chazal as well had a basically mystical approach to reality as evidenced by many midrashim which the Rambam ends up rejecting for obvious reasons.
Empirical proof is only useful in describing the physical world but falls apart when applied to spiritual constructs.
The only vessel that can properly describe the non-physical parts of our being is the imaginative/speculative. That is also what makes it the most dangerous faculty since it is not subject to the same rules of verification as the empirical world. However, it is wrong to strip the title of "reality" away from this part of our being. It is as real as the physical - actually more so.
there is no purpose in evil. What we consider evil is lack of existence or destruction. There is no purpose in non existence.
ReplyDeleteHashem allows everything to exist for a purpose. Even evil.
Ich farshtei nisht.
ReplyDeleteYou have to help my Yiddish. I have no idea what this means.
Physical senses I can touch and feel with my senses. Spiritual existence is a figment of my imagination.
As I said before, the mystical school sees the totality of our experience as emanating directly from Hashem. No part of perception can exist outside of His will. Therefore, those non-physical parts of our being are as real if not more so than the physical parts.
If there is no empirical methodology it does not exist.
See above. I would say that the vast majority of our spiritual experience is not subject to empirical methodology.
There is nothing to bridge. As far as we are concerned there is only one reality the one we know, and that is the one we are expected to deal with. "Lo Bashamaim hee"
I am sure you are aware that this is a misapplication of this saying of chazal.
See above. I would say that the vast majority of our spiritual experience is not subject to empirical methodology.
ReplyDeleteI deny that there is a spiritual experience outside of ourselves.When the mind sees the gadlus Haboreh, our (physical) emotions are triggered and we experience an elation (also Physical) and a happiness (also physical) and we are filled with awe and fear(also physical) when we see how small a microcosm we are compared to the ribono shel olam. To me that is the limit of "spirituality" and it is all within ourselves. There is no external spirituality at all. HKBH is not spirirual because that is limiting.
Ich farshtei nisht means I dont understand.
>Hashem allows everything to exist for a purpose. Even evil.
ReplyDeletegood and evil are relative terms. There is no absolute evil. Something is evil only from the perspective of human point of view. There is no evil from God's perspective
BS right on
ReplyDeleteWe use our rational faculties to try and sort out those ideas whose usefulness is in their rejection by us.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, all ideas are useful. Even if we reject them, the process of dealing with them is useful.
I deny that there is a spiritual experience outside of ourselves.
There is no physical experience outside of ourselves either. We filter everything through our "self." The real question is which things that we experience do we relate to as "real" and which ones we reject. It is somewhat arbitrary to put the line at empirical results since those are also something we process internally.
Based on your response, I have a hard time understanding your approach to the soul. It is non-physical yet at the same time can be acted upon and can interact with other souls. I don't think we can argue or prove it one way or the other - it is a question of whether we include ourselves in a model of existence that allows for these conceptions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletegood and evil are relative terms. There is no absolute evil. Something is evil only from the perspective of human point of view. There is no evil from God's perspective
ReplyDeleteOf course! But that is essentially why all thoughts, even speculative ones and even evil ones are purposeful. Because they are purposeful - they are also real.
The key is which frame of reference we use. If we analyze either from a purely subjective position or from a purely objective position (if that was possible) then good and evil lose their meaning. So what Hashem has given us in His kindness is the Torah which is a frame of reference neither purely objective nor purely subjective but one which miraculously can act as a bridge between our subjective selves and the ein-sof of Hashem. Within this framework there exists "objective" good and evil and according to these rules we must act.
>Based on your response, I have a hard time understanding your approach to the soul. It is non-physical yet at the same time can be acted upon and can interact with other souls. I don't think we can argue or prove it one way or the other - it is a question of whether we include ourselves in a model of existence that allows for these conceptions.
ReplyDeleteI dont agree that that a "soul" can interact with other "souls". Vaypach beapov nishmas chaim" is just that a life force. It is aphysical entity part of a man and exclusive to him. Rambam has no discussion of neshomo as a separate entity. The Nefesh that survives is more a concept then a palpable entity. In a way Mekubalim have coined a phrase Chelek eloha mima'al which puts it in the same category as HKBH, transcendental. That is why Olam Habo is beyond our comprehension.
The Nefesh that survives is more a concept then a palpable entity
ReplyDeleteWhat does this mean?
>So what Hashem has given us in His kindness is the Torah which is a frame of reference neither purely objective nor purely subjective but one which miraculously can act as a bridge between our subjective selves and the ein-sof of Hashem. Within this framework there exists "objective" good and evil and according to these rules we must act
ReplyDeleteI have a different view of this. It is not for a comment. Chrdal you are giving me a host of posts. i thank you because you are really helping define the wide difference between the rational approach and the one that has developed over time as a consequence of the mystical one. At the outset they were much closer and the gap has widened. i believe it is a misguided and dangerous direction.
>What does this mean?
ReplyDeleteExactly what it says. It is not something that can be grasped by a human mind other than being a concept just like HKBH cannot be.
You see the biggest problem when we talk about non-physical concepts is that time cannot come into play. The word survive when applied to a souls, is like an attribute - the best word we can apply to it. That is why Torah never talks about Olam Habo. There was no compelling reason to talk about as opposed to HKBH.
BTW there is a fantastic piece on the subject in Ruach Chaim by R.C,Voloziner on the mishna Kol Ysrael yesh lohem chelek leolam habo in his introduction to Avos.
i believe it is a misguided and dangerous direction.
ReplyDeleteThese sort of statements are useless. I don't agree with the rationalist position but I don't call it dangerous.
To say that everyone from the Gra to the Maharal to the Baal HaTanya led us in a "misguided and dangerous direction" is non-productive.
You are right and I am sorry. I get a little frustrated and shoot off.
ReplyDeleteI am also not sure that Gra, Tanya et al gedolei ysroel had the same conception of their system you have. I am not a maven but I cannot believe they had such a view of the world. That is why they cautioned against learning toras hanistar.
ReplyDeleteI know you can say the same about me and Rambam but my approach there is no nistar. Other than hasogas Hashem which is by definition beyond comprehension we stay with the known.
ReplyDeleteR' David, please can you discuss how you understand hashgachah and schar v'onesh. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am also not sure that Gra, Tanya et al gedolei ysroel had the same conception of their system you have. I am not a maven but I cannot believe they had such a view of the world.
ReplyDeleteI am dust at their feet but I do know for sure that they were no rationalists and that they did hold of torat haAri z"l. The baal HaTanaya considered it to be a giluy Eliyahu. In anycase, my system is based on the machshava of Rav Kook who tried to integrate all Jewish thought that preceded him into a unified system and approach.
That is why they cautioned against learning toras hanistar.
Only because it is subject to misunderstanding and therefore dangerous to the immature mind. The Rambam also cautioned against learning the Moreh - in much stronger terms.
Yoda, I will be posting on that as time allows. From a personal point i have just spent several years working on Nevuah and Nissim. I just submitted an article on nissim for next edition of hakirah. I have now turned my attention to Hashgacha and schar ve'onesh which is pretty much the same. (At least i think so at this time.)
ReplyDelete> The baal HaTanaya considered it to be a giluy Eliyahu.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a rational explanation for this concept? BTW the Ravad uses a similar expression (min Hashomaym) in his comments which i read tongue in cheek.
Do you have a rational explanation for this concept?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you mean by this. The Alter Rebbe wasn't a rationalist - he was a mekubal. He held that the soul of Eliyahu revealed certain secrets of Torah to the Ari. The Ramchal claimed the same thing. It just doesn’t work to go through the past 700 year of Jewish intellectual thought and claim that 90% of the thinkers didn’t mean what they said and didn’t say what they mean.
See Elisheva Carlibach's treatment of the machloket between R' Moshe Hagiz and the Ramchal for more on the role of near-prophesy in the post-churban world.
>It just doesn’t work to go through the past 700 year of Jewish intellectual thought
ReplyDeleteI accept that there were gedolei ysroel who held of these shitos. I can respectfully say that I do not accept their thinking and I have on whom to rely. Again I am still mystified what the attraction of the mystical approach has to the religious person that the majority, and I add a large majority versus a small minority, has accepted it. That does not take away the obligation if one sees it as incorrect to disagree with it. I have to go now - seeyou later.
I can respectfully say that I do not accept their thinking and I have on whom to rely
ReplyDeleteI would never say otherwise.
Again I am still mystified what the attraction of the mystical approach has to the religious person
I don't think that can be explained in a mere comment. All in all, we have a desire to access the infinite. Sitting back and saying that we can only deal in this world does not satisfy our souls at all! I personally have a constant desire to break out of the limits of everything in this world. The esoteric - ironically - helps keep me grounded and focused on the importance of avodas Hashem in this world.
That does not take away the obligation if one sees it as incorrect to disagree with it
A person must choose his path in life. I respect yours greatly - it is SO important zechut to be able to have an organized approach to thought and it is SO rare in today's world. Even though I disagree with your approach, I tip my kippa to you. :)
hey so what did you think of the bodoff article in the edah journal several volumes ago?
ReplyDeleteChardal - thank you for the compliment. I respect your way of thinking too. After all you have Gedolei ysroel on your side and that is no small feat. I posted a while back about the ohr Sameach in Hil Teshuvah where he compares Maharal to Rambam. I got from that that RMS accepted Kabbalah but very different then Maharal, R.Meir ibn Gabai while accepting others. I am intrigued by that and plan to one day look into that.
ReplyDeleteKeep on commenting as you help me clarify things and i thank you for that.
Mivami- what Bodoff article?
ReplyDeletehope this works
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/l3a2g
if not, just go to edah.org and search on the journal page for bodoff
mivami - thanks. will read and comment if there is anything to say.
ReplyDeleteThank you for a wonderul blog and a geat resource.
ReplyDeleteI think that in our own times a mystical approach is absolutey essential precisely because of the success of science is explaining so much of nature. It basically leaves no refuge for religion except in a sanctuary of human experience, consciousness and feeling, areas that science has not yet, and may never be able to successfully invade. Plus, the t enor of our popular culture is very cynical and once you embark on the rationlistic path, there is no stopping on the slippery slope and to the slippery slop. So, by all means, let us be rationlistic most of teh time, but also keep mysiticism as a refuge in which to recharge our spiritual selves so we can remain believers as well as rationalists outside of it.
>but also keep mysiticism as a refuge in which to recharge our spiritual selves so we can remain believers as well as rationalists outside of it.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you are looking to mysticism as a crutch because you are afraid that religion cannot survive with rationalism . I believe that a religion that cannot be totally understood rationally is not worth following. I believe Torah gave us a rational religion and it is totally compatible with a purely rational way of thinking without need to resort to the unknown. Even the unknown as it relates to God is rational! That is what attracts me to it and keeps my juices flowing for new daily insights.
Your comments are all helpful as they give me impetus for further thought and I thank you.