Saturday, April 01, 2006

God's transcendence and Kabbalah

In response to my recent posts about God’s transcendence, several comments inferred that the approach I was proposing was a rational view but Kabbalah saw things differently with God seen as much more involved in the human condition. I am no Kabbalah expert but from the little I have read, I have the impression that there is what I would call authentic Kabbalah as opposed to popular Kabbalah which is probably Kefirah. The authentic Kabbalah is nothing more than an esoteric language used to describe philosophic and metaphysical concepts. It is not a revelatory theology but a rational attempt at reaching the limits of human understanding of God’s actions and how He runs the universe. It does not have any influence on practice other than in the mind.

The popular Kabbalah is an erroneous and incorrect way of “bringing God into the world”, an allegorical idea which is understood anthropomorphically and pantheistically. It is a cop-out and purports to give the believer the ability to influence God. A “holy man” gives a blessing and through his gifts and powers, through “Emunah Peshutah” of the petitioner, that blessing takes hold and the petitioner’s wish is fulfilled. This supposes that the purpose of doing Mitzvos and Avodas Hashem is to influence HKBH and make Him change His mind C”V, have Him interfere in the natural course of events to help this person or people. The premise for this is that HKBH is in the world, there is “presence” of God everywhere. The frustrating thing is that people think that it is a frum and Emunah Peshutah approach to Judaism while the rationalists, who repudiate this nonsense, are on the cusp of apostasy. In reality it is just the opposite.

This Shabbos I came across a Torah Sheleima in the Milu’im on Parshas Shemos where he discusses the argument of the Gra and the Ba’al Hatanya on “Melo kol Ho’oretz Kevodo”. The Ba’al Hatanya takes it literally, that God is everywhere while the Gra understands it to refer to God’s providence. I am not sure what the difference is in practice but I would imagine that misunderstanding Tanya’s approach one can end up seeing God in physical things, pantheism. Tanya in one of his letters ascribes the Gra’s opposition to him to this teaching of his. Of course he defends it by suggesting that he could defend himself if given the opportunity to present his case to Gra.

The Gra (in the Likutim at the end of Sifra Detznu’ata) on the other hand discusses the issue of Providence from this perspective and before he delves into it he makes the following statement; (my translation)

Know that the Ein Sof Boruch Hu one may not think about Him at all, (he is referring to God’s essence), because you CANNOT attribute to Him even Necessary Existence,(necessary existence is when something exists independent of anything else existing – it exists even if it is the only thing that exists - it is an attribute that can only be applied to God)…And when we do talk about Him, and about the Sefirot, All that discussion about His will and His providence, it is only from our perspective of how we view the result of His actions. (in other words Gra agrees that saying God exists is only a way of expressing the inexpressible)

The real Mekubalim were not that far away from Rambam. Ramban knew the Moreh backwards and forwards and used it as the basis for his own thoughts even when disagreeing. The basic concepts were the same. Rambam however held that there is a limit of how far the human intellect can go. It was a philosophical position and held that going further was pure fantasy. The early Mekubalim went further trying to understand more of the metaphysical aspects of God. Where they all agreed is that God is transcendent and His essence cannot be known. His attributes are just that, words that express in human language concepts that have no words. That includes the basic idea of existence.

To be able to discern true Kabbalah from false and even more, even when we know the Kabbalah of a particular author is legitimate by reputation, there still is a risk that our reading of that text is incorrect. I am appalled at some of the things I read online by some who think they understand Kabbalah. Other things I read I am not sure about but I have my doubts. I therefore stay away from that Chochma and leave it for the Tznuim who don't talk about it and follow the Hallacha 'velo bema'aseh merkavah beyachid..."

17 comments:

  1. I hope I am not one of those you are appalled by. Actually I think that a skeptic like you is far better suited to the study of sod, or any field that addresses difficult issues, than a "true believer," i.e., someone who prefers to just swallow whatever they're told. There is no substitute for critical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sechel, thanks for the compliment. I accept Rambam's position that there is a limit to human knowledge by definition. Knowledge is empirical and metaphysics is conjecture thus imagination. I can talk about it but only where revelation, namely Torah and the prophets lead me. Anything based on "Gilui Elayahu" or any such fantasy I reject offhand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. have you ever read Major Trends In Jewish Mysticism?

    I find it funny that you'll take take something like the talking donkey non-literally, but say "Gilui Elayahu" is just nuts. Isn't this a bit of a double standard? Both of these things seem to be creative fictions. If we judge everything on face value, then why should the Torah get a free pass? On the other hand if we delve deeply into everything, then why not do the same for kabbalah?

    ReplyDelete
  4. >I can talk about it but only where revelation, namely Torah and the prophets lead me.

    do you really think that Torah and prophets lead to Rambam's philosophy? Do you think the prophets were philosophers? They don't appear to be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >Knowledge is empirical and metaphysics is conjecture thus imagination

    I am not sure that all knowledge is empirical. I think certain mathematical ideas are not gotten from observation alone, yet they are not conjecture, but are necessarily true. If this were not so, then the whole idea of metaphysics would be useless, and what would be the point of thinking about God?

    I still have to think about it

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I must say this post left me thinking. I usually hear very simple theology (I prayed = it happened). You have wonderful arguments, but I imagine they are not limited to the Kabbalah. Are you one with the belief that science can explain everything? Or do you think that philosophy and theology are in error and incomplete?

    ReplyDelete
  7. >have you ever read Major Trends In Jewish Mysticism?

    Sure. I have read many of Gershon Scholem's writings.So have I read Idel, Dan, Tishbi, Hallamish,Liebes,and more.

    I know you don't understand my concept of revelation but keep on reading. I do believe in it and I believe that Torah is special in that field. i also believe that most revelation is a hoax. It can only be genuine if it lives up to certain criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BS - I do believe and am convinced, empirically, that Rambam's main source is Torah not philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >Are you one with the belief that science can explain everything?

    I believe that we humans can only apprehend what is sensed and deduced rationally. I do believe in revelation but from a non mystical point of view. I will be posting about it and keep on reading.

    Or do you think that philosophy and theology are in error and incomplete?

    I believe that certain theology is correct as I think is certain philosophy. For it to be genuine it has to live up to certain conditions which again is for several posts not a noe off comment.

    However I do believe that of the fundamentals is strict monotheism. The little I know about other religions, medieval Islam lived up to it as does non Kabbalistic and rational Judaism while Christianity does not, nor does Buddhism and many eastern religions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't understand what the Gra means by "you CANNOT attribute to Him even Necessary Existence". Rambam in the begining of Sefer Mada, is very clear that God necessarily exists - his argument I find is quite convincing. Is the Gra just disagreeing with the Rambam? Your own explanation of necessariy existance (it is an attribute that can only be applied to God) the Gra says is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Natan,

    The concept of necessary existence means that God exists notwhistanding whether anything else existed or not. However the word existence is a human term and connotes relativity. Look at Moreh 1:65 in the beginning "shehu yta'aleh motzui velo bimtzius" and the whole of 1:57. Gra understands this one step further and i agree wholeheartedly, and here is his language" Ki ossur lechanos bo ve'afilu chovas hametzius". For a good explanation see my post here:

    http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/02/negative-knowledge-essential-doctrine.html#links

    That is the Negative Theology approach. I don't know if Gra buys into it, it is Rambam based on Alafarabi, but he would have to come up with something similar to explain it.I vaguely remember reading either in Aderes Elyahu or another one of his writtings something similar to Rambam but I was never Me'ayen in Toras Hagra too far.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >The real Mekubalim were not that far away from Rambam. Ramban knew the Moreh backwards and forwards and used it as the basis for his own thoughts even when disagreeing. The basic concepts were the same. Rambam however held that there is a limit of how far the human intellect can go. It was a philosophical position and held that going further was pure fantasy. The early Mekubalim went further trying to understand more of the metaphysical aspects of God. Where they all agreed is that God is transcendent and His essence cannot be known. His attributes are just that, words that express in human language concepts that have no words. That includes the basic idea of existence.

    Read Magen VeTzina perek 27

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think you missed the main point of contention between the mekubalim (the Gra among them) and the rationalists. The main issue of contention is how to define God's essence. All agree that God's essence can not be grasped but disagree as to what constitutes God's actions - is God's "thought" an action of His essence?

    The rationalist and the mekubalim of the middle ages both set out to accomplish the same thing. That was to come up with a system that would allow for both the personal conception of God as seen in Tanach and allow for the abstract impersonal conception of God as per the philosophers.

    In my estimation, kabbalah succeeded while the Jewish philosophers largely failed - too much of their stances are really forced readings of the tanach. Kabbalah is the only real system that allows us to personally approach the Ein Sof.

    PS. I hope I not the commentor you are appaled by :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chardal, How can you even think so? I was talking about some of the off the cuff comments I see here and there by people who grab Kabbalah as a way of not thinking.

    Your description of yediahis exactly how R. Meir Simcha understood Maharal in Ohr Sameach Hil Tshuvah in his essay Hakol Tzofuy. He goes on to disprove it using the words "ossur leomro". He explains Rambam but just alludes to his own understanding.

    R.Kasher in Torah Shleima tries to define the difference between Gra and Tanya as to Tzimtzum. He claims Gra thinks it as Hashgacha while Tanya sees it as a "presence". Gra before making his statement puts in the proviso that caught my interest.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Maharal discusses this in strong fashion in the 5th chapter of Avot in Derech Hashem. I strongly advise looking at the piece inside (I don't remember which mishna of hand but it is one of the "10s")

    This was not just the maharal's shita but in reality goes all the way back to the earliest mekubalim of Spain. The big question is what the meaning of the sephira of keter is and where it fits into the sephira system.

    What is fascinating is that the mekubalim themselves are split over this with some placing keter outside of the sphira system and within the incomprehensible ein sof while others include it as the top sphira from which chochma and thereafter all other sphirot emanate.

    Keter in this context is usually synonymous with will. What is fascinating is that it took philosophy 800 years to get to a similar conclusion with Schopenhauer and Nietze in his wake seeing will as THE fundamental component of existence.

    Rav Kook comments that Schopenhauer’s fatal flaw was that he creates a disconnect between will and chochma which in turn leads to the inevitable system of nihilism. He then goes on with a tour-de-force where he shows the interdependence of will and chochma.

    ReplyDelete
  16. PS. we could start a blog:

    Blogger for responsible use of philosophy and kabbala.

    What do you think? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. >This was not just the maharal's shita but in reality goes all the way back to the earliest mekubalim of Spain.

    That is correct. RMS says that R.Meir ibn Gabbay preceded Maharal in this.

    ReplyDelete