Lecture #10: Theology ֠Letter 44, Section E
By Rav Tamir
Granot
Lecture #10:
Theology
Letter 44,
Section E
In
the present section, Rav Kook compares Kantian epistemology with the
epistemology of the kabbala.
There is a strong connection between epistemology, ontology, and
theology, and they are fundamentally interdependent. Thus, this section contains the
philosophical core of the unified theory of everything, which is the foundation
of Rav Kooks religious thought and philosophy. The primary work of Rav Kooks thought,
Orot Ha-Kodesh, is arranged on the basis of this logic: the first part
deals with epistemology and the second part deals with ontology and
theology. The third part of the
book is The Morality of Holiness, and we have already discussed the direct
link, according to Rav Kook, between cognizance of God and
morality.
Rav
Kooks discussion has two objectives:
1.
Clarifying the profound point of departure of Jewish faith from gentile
faith and the crux of the difference the theory of
divinity.
2.
Demonstrating the relationship between the philosophical truth stemming
from a single gentile sage, Immanuel Kant whose epistemology was considered by
many contemporaries to be one of the pinnacles of all human philosophy and the
inner wisdom of the Jewish People, which found its expression and concepts in
the kabbala. Rav Kook argues
that Jewish esoteric wisdom already contained that which Kant had said and even
more; we need his thought, at most, for its language and formulation, not for
its essence.
In
order to understand Rav Kooks discussion, it is worthwhile becoming at least
basically familiar with Kantian epistemology. Kant explained it fully in his
Prolegomena (or its full title, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science), published soon after his
magnum opus, Critique of Pure Reason. Prolegomena wrought a
revolution in scientific and metaphysical thinking. One who wishes to delve into this is
welcome to study it. A summary of
Kants epistemology will appear next week as an appendix to this
lecture.
In
order to understand this section, one must also be familiar with the basic
structure of the kabbalistic theory of emanations (atzilut) and the
configuration of the sefirot.
In this section, Rav Kook primarily deals with the sefira of
Malkhut (Kingdom) and its significance from an epistemological
perspective. In the previous
lecture, we spoke about the fact that the sefira of Malkhut is
also called Knesset Yisrael, and it is indeed the ideal essence of
Malkhut. A different aspect
of the sefira of Malkhut will presently be
emphasized.
By
way of introduction to this reading, we note that in all kabbalistic diagrams,
the sefira of Malkhut is described as the sefira that
mediates and bridges between different realities generally between the highest
Divine reality (the upper sefirot) and the terrestrial reality below
it. Rav Kook, as usual, introduces
new life into the old diagrams. The
most significant source for understanding his words is the section of
Tanya entitled Shaar Ha-Yichud Ve-Haemuna, by R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Chabads
Alter Rebbe.
We
will expand on the kabbalistic fundamentals at the beginning of lecture 11,
which will focus primarily on Section E. Next week, I
will send out an appendix to this lecture, which will contain graphs and a
simple explanation of the theory of sefirot and more. (This appendix is borrowed from another
website.) It may also suffice for
you to read the section of the letter with its explanation, in which the main
issues are summarized. We will
expand on it in the lecture. Due to
the proliferation of terms and ideas, the explanations are particularly long
this time. You are welcome to read
them.
Letter 44
Section E
We stand above all
despair,[1]
even the most refined and appealing, which is no more than plaster over a flimsy
wall.[2]
Even the
"neo-Kantian revival"[3]
cannot
match even the smallest part of
[1] Despair can be found in the pessimism that emerges from Schopenhauers
philosophy, in Nietzsche, in Buddhism, which despairs of the world, and in
atheism, which leads to solipsism, a worldview devoid of orientation and free of
progress.
[2] An
expression borrowed from Yechezkels metaphor, They plaster over that flimsy
wall (Yechezkel 13:10 and the rest of the chapter; see also ibid.
22:28), about a nation that covers up and reinforces false prophecy. Rav Kook means that modern philosophy
announces nothing new to us; even those true points can be found within the
inner Jewish truth.
[3] An
expression borrowed from R. Alexandrovs letter, which saw Western philosophy as
having reached the peak of its achievement with Kants thought and as
progressively deteriorating into the depths of materialism. The following words deal with Kants
epistemology as formulated in the Critique of Pure Reason and more
concisely and clearly in his Prolegomena (Prolegomena
to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a
Science).
[4] In
brief, Kant pointed out that all consciousness (the perception of reality or
thought) depends on the categories of reason, which are an integral part of
them. In other words, they precede
experience, and they therefore mold our very encounter with reality. The subjectivity that Rav Kook refers
to is the reason of every subject of every person that we are unable to
perceive or think outside of, and thus all of our knowledge is a result of
it. In Critique of Pure
Reason, Kant proposed a study of the empirical categories of reason, an
attempt to describe the patterns of consciousness of human reason. Kants conclusion has far-reaching
consequences: since the pattern of consciousness is given and our knowledge of
the world is thus dictated by it we do not know the world as such, but rather
as it appears to us (the world of phenomena). This leads to the conclusion
that our perception of reality is partial and
tentative.
[5]
Kabbalists say that the sefira of Malkhut one of whose
monikers is the moon has nothing of its own. In other words, it has no independent
substance. Rav Kook presently
explains that the meaning of this determination is that Malkhut is the
form of awareness of reality, the reflection of reality within our
consciousness, but it is not itself reality, and therefore has nothing of its
own. Paradoxically, we are capable
of seeing the light of the moon, which is a reflection of sunlight, but we
cannot gaze at the sunlight, the source itself. See the next note.
[6]
As is known, Chazal interpreted the verse in Yechezkel
(11:16), And I will be for them a miniature temple in the lands
These are
the synagogues and batei midrash in Babylonian (Megilla
29a). This explains the
connection between the Shekhina and the synagogue, as well as the idea
that the synagogue, like the moon, is a place where the Divine light is
reflected in a restricted manner, enabling contact with
man.
[7] The Zohar states that the Shekhina is the same as
Malkhut: All these seven upper levels [i.e., the seven sefirot
from Chesed to Malkhut] re-accept from the higher mother [i.e.,
the sefira of Bina, which is the source of profusion for the seven
sefirot]. The stature of the
moon, which reigns at night, draws nourishment from the level called the lower
Shekhina, which is nourished by the tzaddik [i.e., the moon is
influenced by the tzaddik the sefira of Yesod]. Since the tzaddik is filled with
supernal delights and it is nourished by it, [this level] is called moon. For
just as the lower moon has none of its own light, only what is given it from the
sun, so too this higher level (Hashmatot Zohar
251b).
[8] The
word zot is one of the most important names of the sefira of
Malkhut. Malkhut is
always the feminine side of the Divine atzilut, and therefore all of the
feminine names are linked to it: moon, Knesset Yisrael, Malkhut,
zot, and Shekhina.
Rav Kook presently cites this name in order to clarify that the
possibility of achieving concrete experience or perception of reality,
zot, depends on the sefira of Malkhut, through which, as
a form of consciousness, inner and outer reality obtains articulation,
definition, delimitation and consequently substance. Thus, be-zot Ani
boteiach. In the biblical
source (Tehillim 27:3), the word zot is merely a name: If a war
arises against me, I have faith in zot I have faith in God that He
will save me from any war. In the
kabbalistic text, this word alludes to the Shekhina to Malkhut
which fights
[9] In
other words, idolatry and atheism stem from the same root - relating to the
object only. Idolatry attributed
the Divine essence to objects, and thus brought about the anthropomorphism and
vulgarization of faith. Modern
philosophy only acknowledges the object because it does not know more than what
is comprehended through rational human sense-perception. The foundation of modern atheism is the
denial of anything about which This! Zot! cannot be said. Kant understood that the perceived
this is only the world of phenomena and that unperceived being lies beyond it;
however, the idolatrous root caused man to ignore that being or to be unable to
understand the relationship between that which is beyond awareness and the
revealed and familiar world. Thus,
idolatry and modern atheism are two sides of the same
coin.
[10] The
(Divine) object, which is the source of the phenomena, the source of all
zot (concrete being, something that can be perceived, pointed to, and
indicated by zot, this!), has no form at all. The word form carries its modern
meaning here, not its philosophical meaning. Rav Kook means to say that Divinity, the
source of all phenomena, is not only not physical, it is devoid of any
metaphysical description or definition.
This is the meaning of the sentence for us also it is as if He is without
existence; according to the categories of our perception, that which is not
defined, or at least perceived hypothetically, does not exist. This is, of course, a philosophical
fallacy, because the objects concept is embedded, as stated, in human reason
it is a form of thought. Therefore,
seeking Divinity based on the concepts of reason leads to imagining it as an
object i.e., to idolatry or to the negation of its existence, i.e., to
atheism.
[11] Rav
Kook accepts the Rambams doctrine of negative attribution. According to this doctrine, Divinity
cannot be described with any positive description because description is
definition, and definition sets the reality of an object for God, i.e., His
being an entity that exists in itself (even if described as perfect, the
greatest, etc.). God is described
as the source of reality One for Whom existence as phenomenon, as
zot,' is impossible without, just as the moon cannot shine without the
sun. The non-negation of the Source
and His non-positive definition are two cornerstones of Jewish theology, since
through this combination God is, on one hand, inevitable the phenomena cannot
exist without their Source and on the other hand He is beyond human
comprehension. Human perception only knows phenomena, the reflection of the
Divine source in our consciousness when it contemplates reality and portrays it
with the stylus of subjective awareness.
[12] In
other words, even the basic awareness of Gods existence depends on its
reflection in reality the Shekhina and we have no unmediated contact
with Divinity outside of Malkhut.
See n.
8.
[13]
Monotheism that relates to the Divine essence and not to its
manifestations in reality divorces the world from Divinity, and thus nullifies
the importance of technology (practical ability), ethics (morality), and
aesthetics (beauty), as they are immanent universal phenomena. When we enter the banquet hall
(Divinity) through the gate revealed Divinity (the metaphor used by Rav Kook
in his essay Thirsting for the Living God; Zeronim
[14] The proliferation of color is the aforementioned
world of phenomena, perceived by human awareness represented by the
sefira of Malkhut through which we see all reflections,
idealism, and realness of the Divine source. Malkhut is a sort of prism; we,
who look at the prism through its other side, see many colors, but they all
originate in the white light, distinct and different from all the other colors,
that was shone into it and refracted at different angles. Our consciousness is such a
prism.
[15]
Ani is a name for the sefira of Malkhut, for the
Shekhina (Hashmatot Zohar, 261b). Ayin is a name for the
sefira of Keter, the root of emanation, the aspect that is beyond
any definition or comprehension (see, for example, the tenth shaar of
Shaarei Ora) the knowledge of the existence of a Source, but no
knowledge of its essence. Whereas
the form of the sefirot is in the stature of man and its structure is
known to us by its reflection in man, Keter is above and beyond any
expression it is the source of everything. From our perspective, it is merely a
shimmer like a crown.
Ayin is the first sefira; Ani is the last
sefira. Malkhut is
Ani because it is, as stated, the source of the subjective
consciousness of mans awareness of his reality as a separate and distinct
reality, from within which he contemplates what is outside. According to what was stated here,
awareness of the Ani is the source for the Ayin: if the Ani
is recognized for what it really is a reflection of a hidden reality then it
itself points toward the Ayin.
See, for example, the following passage from R. Yosef Gikatilia: This is
the secret of the stem of the yud [Keter is represented by the
stem of a yud], for Ayin has no particular letter that it why it is
called Ayin [nothingness]:
Ayin is above and Ani is below, the receptacle of the abundance of
the sefirot [in other words, Malkhut, which is Ani,
received the abundance of the sefirot] (Shaarei Tzedek, seventh
shaar; notes in square brackets are
mine).
[16] This
means that the Jewish idea of Divine unity was falsified in Muslim-Christian
theology into what is called monotheism: awe of God as an infinite
entity.
[17] The
accusing finger is pointed here manly at Islam, although the claim is also
true of all of Judaisms offspring.
Monotheism, which many people mistakenly consider Judaism to be, speaks
of Divine existence as being an infinite entity, a perfect metaphysical Being,
that is directly grasped by religious-philosophical consciousness. Monotheistic religion is based on
relating to that entity, and not on relating to its manifestations. This theistic concept, as it is often
called, contradicts itself, for what is a concept cannot be infinite. Medieval theology is full of linguistic
and philosophical games whose goal is to solve this problem, but according to
Rav Kook, the theological contradiction remains in
force.
[18] And
he encountered the place R. Huna said in the name of R. Ami: Why do we give
God the moniker of Place (Makom)? Because He is the Place of the
world, and the world is not His place (Bereishit Rabba [Vilna] sec. 68, s.v. va-yifga ba-makom). The word Makom here takes on
the meaning of source: the world is expressed within God, but the revealed
world does not exhaust His being.
[19] As he
does in many places, Rav Kook uses code words here: Profusion of action =
Malkhut; Profusion of peace = Yesod; Profusion of love =
Chesed; Profusion of strength = Gevura (Din). These are the main sefirot among
the seven constructive sefirot, through which the hidden Divinity is
expressed as it is grasped by us through its ideals by walking by the light of
and striving to actualize these ideals, we adhere to them and to their
Source. We have no contact with
Keter, only knowledge of its existence; we do, however, have a real,
living relationship with its emanation with the ideals that are revealed as
various phases of the Divine emanation through the structure of the
sefirot.
[20] In
philosophical Islam, the Divine is perceived as a transcendent entity that is
not a source of life, but is outside of life. Buddhism completely negates the world
and says that only mans merging with the infinite validates his life and raises
it above the worlds suffering thus it negates
life.
[21] Ulla
Biraah said in the name of R. Elazar: In the future, God will make a dance
circle for the righteous, and He will sit among them in the Garden of Eden, and
each of them will point to Him with their finger, as it says (Yeshayahu
25), And they will say on that day,
Lo, this is
our God; we have waited for Him that he should save us; this is the Lord; we
have waited for Him; we shall be glad and rejoice in His salvation
(Taanit 31a). Here, Rav
Kook interprets the rabbinic midrash as a wonderful metaphor for his
idea. The righteous point to God
with their fingers they relate to concrete, real expression: Behold! This!
God is in the middle, and each of the righteous surrounding Him points to the
concrete expression from his own angle, from his perspective, from his
aspect. This is the proliferation
of color that was spoken of before.
In the future, we will merit seeing the full extent of the circle; in the
meantime, we are privy to partial expressions, knowing that they all have a
single source.
[22] Tehillim
144:15. The emphasis is on who has
it thus: the nation that engages morality, and is not content with
philosophical abstraction this is the nation whose Lord is
God.