Discussing Kabbalistic Wisdom
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Quite a while back I had a discussion wherein a man named Yoel HaLevi wanted to discuss the veracity of the Wisdom of Kabbalah. I forgot about this exchange until recently when I opened up a file containing the dialogue and figured it would make a good posting on this blog. The arguments and counter-point will provide some good material to think and contemplate upon. Yoel’s assertions are in bold font and my responses are in regular font…
“First, Kabalists are not sure if Ein Sof is
God, or even if there are any actual discussions about God at all.”
In reference to “God,” we have to clarify one thing in particular- God is
simply a subjective term wherein every individual posits their own definitions
and frame an individualized persona or Divine effigy that is mentally
constructed in their own image. This is the source of religious frustration in
dialogue. How can two people have a productive dialogue when they each have a
fundamentally differing perception on the identity of God. In the Hebrew there
is not an equivalent to the term “God” and to impose the subjective term into
the Biblical text is erroneous and leads to a complete misunderstanding of the
entire Hebrew narrative. The Hebrew Bible uses very specific terms to relate
very specific concepts within the context of the narrative wherein they appear.
All of the terms that are generically translated as “God” reveal qualities and
characteristics of how the Divine Transcendence relates to and reveals certain
qualities within the context of finite existence. The Kabbalist’s see these
occurrences of Divine “Names” not as Deity proper rather as a glimpse of Divine
quality within the limited finite sense. For example, does the term “Elohim”
refer to a transcendent “God” in a proper sense? The Kabbalist’s (as outlined
in the Zohar) say “no” because the grammatical structure of the first verse of
Genesis can be interpreted or translated to read Elohim as the product of
Creation not its progenitor.
The Kabbalist’s understand that any finite representation of “God” is
distinctly finite and since God “proper” is Transcendent then no finite
depictions are adequate to ascribe qualities and characteristic as the nature
of Transcendence supersedes qualities of human recognition. The human mind
itself is not capable of objective thought process and can only see reality in
the context of subjective perceptions that have been accumulated throughout
one’s life which frame an individual context of interpreting their reality
around them. The Bible is a work which itself attempts to convey objective
ideals but does so in a subjective context as it could be no other way. This is
why the writers of the Biblical narrative explain the process of Divine
revelation in terms that are anthropomorphic. In other words, it is written
concerning the Divine that it has human attributes such as a hand, arms, eyes,
expresses human emotions such as hate, love, jealousy, etc. None of these
anthropomorphisms are literal rather they are used as analogies and allusions
to depict archetypes and inner qualities of human experience.
Ein Sof is simply a designation that recognizes that the Transcendence of
Divinity cannot be comprehended nor grasped by the limited finite mind of human
cognitive ability. It is like trying to explain in scientific terms what
existed prior to the Big Bang. It is a ridiculous exercise mental exertion
since the Big Bang is supposed to be the Beginning of existence and our minds
are a product of existence and unable to perceive non-existence. Ein Sof is
No-Thing and that cannot be comprehended by Some-Thing (us).
“This tree is one of several that also have
counterparts in the Sefirot of Sitrah Achra- the other side. This is one of the
dualistic points used in Kabbalh that is contrary to Torah.”
As far as dualism in the Torah we see that dualism is the defining
characteristic of existence. We ask the question in Torah study: “Why does the
Torah begin with a beit and not an alef?” There are various explanation given
but the mo0st significant explanation in my opinion is that the beit has the
numerical value of two. Existence can’t exist in a tangible sense without the
expression of duality. Time and space itself is a dualistic concept and the
first letter (Beit) of Creation represent a transition from Singularity to
multiplicity for only in multiplicity is the plenum of all possibilities
expressed and actualized. This is also why the question is asked “Why is the
Beit closed on one side?” The Beit is closed on the side preceding the Creation
narrative to indicate that what came before is a state of non-existence that is
impossible to perceive by existence itself.
“The first answer only explains one opinion
about Ein Sof. Some believe it to be God, while others don't, meaning that we
never actually speak of God.”
As I mentioned previously there is no such thing as “God” in the Hebrew
Bible thus for a productive dialogue to take place the concept of “God” must be
thrown out of the discourse and only the Transcendent (Unknowable) and the
finite qualities representing Immanence should frame the discourse.
“The second answer is basically
a typical Kabbalistic explanation of trying to find in the biblical text an
extra idea that will prove the common thought in Kabbalh. However, dualism is
not attested in The Tanakh, and even more so probably forbidden.”
I am not sure what is meant by the statement “parallel powers.” There is
only one Power and Source from which all originates and has it being and that
is in the First Cause of Singularity. Existence is defined by boundaries and
laws which mean it is a dualistic construct- if existence wasn’t dualistic then
there would be no “you” and “me” and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The
whole space-time continuum is a dualism. The concept of dualism isn’t even a
Kabbalistic concept rather the Kabbalah says that in essence dualism is an
illusion. ALL of existence proceeds from non-existence and all of existence is
a manifestation of consciousness which perceives a state of being that is less
than the objective reality of Oneness. Kabbalah states that dualism is an
illusion whereas the externalized religious folk see dualism as reality for it
is all they may perceive with their senses.
The sensory perception of dualism is the natural state of our
consciousness. Kabbalah has an explanation for how Singularity manifests
multiplicity via the concept of the Sefirot. The Sefirot are purely conceptual
and not a tangible physical reality. They represent archetypes of human
consciousness as it manifests in an opposing psychological medium. For example,
the human psyche can be seen in politics wherein you have a liberal and overly
progressive system which believes in a lack of restraint but on the opposite
spectrum there is a party that manifests a conservative consciousness which at
times may be excessive in orientation and over bearing. The Kabbalah recognizes
that these are two principles that are at work in consciousness and that the
two harmonize the state of the mind and hence the whole of existence. The
purpose of the Kabbalist is to recognize the and tendencies within himself and
bring equilibrium to his own nature. Likewise, the whole Sefirotic system is
simply the natural laws that oppose, balance and harmonize existence and these
principles are naturally observed.
“The origins of parallel powers originates in
Zoroastrianism from Persia. Interestingly the Yachad of the DSS also believed
in it, while Rabbis objected to it. Another issue is the masculine-feminine
division that resembles ancient religions that believed in gods always having a
male and female counterpart. This idea is much older and dates back to some of
the earliest religions we know of. In any case thank you for posting this, thank
you Jason for the insight. I pray to hear more from you on the subject.”
The plain narrative of the Creation account explains that the feminine (Chava) was separated from the masculine
(Adam)- i.e. Chava was taken from the side of Adam. This story is a perfect allusion to the gestation of
conscious awareness which requires a polarity to have the potential to
experience a tangible existentialism. Male and female, space and distance,
past-present-future, all of these things and more are aspects that define our
ability to exercise a tangible free will by giving us the cognizance of our own
self. I am sure many other cultures that were concurrent and also pre-dated
Judaism were aware of this as a most basic law of existence. The fact that
other cultures had similar if not identical customs, rituals and ideologies is
not a pretext for denouncing something.
0 comments: