God’s Perfection - שלמות

The topic of God’s Perfection, שלמות, seems to have eluded philosophical treatment by the classic Jewish mystics and philosophers. It’s as if it were simply an accepted given, maybe even axiomatic. At times it was referred to as an idea lingering in the philosophical background. An example of this is Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto’s "The Way of God" where he mentions God is Perfect. Then based on this assertion builds his argument that God's benevolent giving must also be Perfect, for the Perfect One behaves perfectly. However, he never goes through the steps to prove that God is Perfect. Quite to the contrary, he uses it as the foundational axiom for what he’s trying to prove.

Surprisingly it seems like God’s Perfection was treated as even more axiomatic than other sensitive topics, such as His Oneness. Honestly, when I first realized this I found it quite puzzling. In truth, I cannot claim to have encountered every available page of holy texts dealing with the “Big Questions” nor can I claim memory of all that I have already read. Yet, somehow I am left with the general impression that God's Perfection has been simply assumed. If you, my reader, happen to discover a holy text where it’s proven, please let me know either via email or comment to this essay (on my blog).

Perhaps, the classic Jewish sages beheld an attitude of reverence that only Perfection truly befits God’s Holy Majesty. Still, even the most sentimental of attitudes bear a latent logic. Isn’t this part of what keeps the psychology profession busy?

It's possible that in the past when everyone identified with a religion of one sort or another, the Jewish sages felt no need to explain why God is considered Perfect. Nobody would imagine that they worshiped One less than Perfect. Among the masses, this attitude may have not been entirely driven by reverence. There may have been personal pride mixed in there too, as if their choice of worship reflected back on their own self image.

Yet, since there was universal agreement, there was no need for the idea to be proven. It was safe to philosophically let go of. Plus, if necessary, the ideas stood ripe to serve as the very basis of a theological argument – like Rabbi Luzzatto did. In contrast, there was a need to explain an idea like the Jewish version of God's Oneness. Both neighboring faiths were hawking their Jewish populations - seeking to wrest converts. The Christians tried to draw Jews towards their notion of a trinity and in Muslims countries the Jews had to demonstrate that they were on at least equal monotheistic footing. In such cultural climates, Jews needed to be well informed about their notion monotheism and trained to argue for it.

Today, we are no longer live in an age of universal religious affiliation. Accordingly, there’s not necessarily an automatic reverence for God’s Perfection. Perhaps, it’s time has to unpack the latent logic underlying the reverent assumption of God's Perfection.

The mystic in me asks, "Faith is so beautiful and precious. It often engages the highest and brightest of what it means to be a soulful human being. Why engage in the work of transforming a precious matter of faith into logic?"

There are two related reasons why. The first I heard from Rabbi Leibel Shapiro of Miami Beach, Florida. God wants us to serve Him with all of our faculties. This includes our minds as well. Therefore, we are encouraged to engage our minds in His service whenever possible to.

The second reason is because the mind is a vessel to receive illumination from the soul.  The more the mind is engaged in spiritual thought, the more illumination from the soul comes streaming into contact with the biological organism - fostering deeper contact and union between the spiritual and the physical.

One need not worry. The reservoir of faith will never be depleted by the transformation of cherished beliefs into concrete logic. It's not like a species in danger of extinction. If anything answers lead to more questions which bring humans face to face with new areas of faith, never before considered. So, paradoxically answering “Big Questions” can actually enlarge the reservoir of faith.

It's with this spirit that I engage in attempting to explain logically why God is Perfect. Reality is designed in a way that everything seems to have a polar opposite. Examples of such include male/female, day/night, light/dark, work/rest, proton/electron, matter/anti-matter, good/evil...I think you get the idea. Similarly, as part of this sweeping overall pattern, imperfection needs to have its opposite too - Perfection.

Since "Perfection is not of this world", one must conclude that flawless existence is elsewhere.  What we have in this world is, at best, a series of cause and effect events designed to compensate for flaws.   However, to immediately identify God as that "Perfect opposite" might be too fast of a jump.

So, let's slow down and consider a different question first. Is God Infinite? The standard answer for a believer is, "Yes". However, as Rabbi Moshe Schatz shared with me that there were some classical Kabbalists who felt uncomfortable calling God, “Infinite”. They felt that even such an expansive term for God might be inadequate because He is then being referred to as the opposite of something else, namely finite reality. And how can He ever be compared to anything else!

However, even some of these Kabbalists occasionally referred to God as Infinite.

What might have they meant? I do not think they were making reluctant concessions to the conventions of language. I think what they meant was that God is "at least Infinite", if not so much more than that. Another way to say this is that while Infinity might not necessarily be Him, it certainly is "of Him".

Similarly, to say that God is Perfect might run into the same problem as saying He's Infinite. At least, the word Infinity bears a silver lining, as it's not directly descriptive. The word Infinite means, “Not finite". It's pointing to God by way of elimination; stating who He's not rather than Who He is.

In contrast, the word Perfect, and its Hebrew corollary שלמות, are direct descriptions. One could in theory substitute the Perfect for Flawless – i.e. not flawed. However, it does not follow with the Hebrew word, שלמות, which the sages used.

In conclusion, my thoughts are that by the principle of opposites, imperfection has a polar opposite, Perfection, somewhere in reality. Is it God? I think that God is "at least Perfect", if not so much more than that. In other words, Perfection is "of God". However, for simplicity's sake conventional believers proclaim, "God is Perfect!"

---------------------O-------------------

Dual Approach

The Torah sometimes describes to God in human terms - such as having human features, like “eyes”, or human sensations, like enjoying pleasing fragrances. These human like descriptions are called is academic English, “Anthropomorphisms”.

The word anthropomorphism means ascribing human traits, character, thinking, emotions and behaviors to a non-human entity. Since God is indivisible and invisible, there is no way to describe Him to a human being. So, anthropomorphic descriptions serve as a kind of shorthand to ease communication about God for human ears.

Traditionally there are two approaches to understand the Torah’s system of anthropomorphic language. One is the Maimonidean approach. The other is a Kabbalistic approach.

To the Maimonides all such descriptions are strictly metaphors which mean that God has all the abilities humans have (plus Infinitely more), but without needing to resort to a body or any other form. Accordingly, a statement that “God sees” means that He’s aware, as one endowed with eyes would be (and Infinitely more so). So, it’s not that He has “eyes”. Rather, He has an awareness that humans would rely on eyes to gather. The same notion applies to the statement, “God hears” or any other similar statement.

The Kabbalistic approach employs a different take. The human styled descriptions of God in the Torah are assigned to the spiritual realms and not to God Himself.

The spiritual realms are a long chain of realms or worlds which span between God’s Infinite Light and the physical universe. Spiritual light pass through these realms on their way down to the physical realm. As this light threads through each realm, it grants life to the structure of the realm and to all of its inhabitants - serving as a soul.  Along the chain, these multiple realms successively filter and weaken the light, so that it’s suitable for the next realm down. The process continues and repeats until the light reaches our physical universe, lodged at the very bottom of the chain.

So, for example, God has “eyes”. He really “possesses” them! They just happen to have a differentiated presence in the spiritual realms and not directly in His Being. Roughly speaking, it’s like the difference between having brains and money. Though one possesses both, brains are in one’s person and money’s in the bank account.

Since the Kabbalistic approach focuses on the spiritual realms and not on God Himself, it allows for more flexibility of interpretation. It becomes much less problematic to say that such human styled descriptions edge closer to being literal. Though such descriptions are not nearly as literal as they sound, they do not need to be immediately swept away as strictly metaphoric either.  

There are actual forces distributed throughout the spiritual realms which behave as parallels to human thoughts, feelings, organs, sensations and actions. Think of the way genes parallel organs or TV waves parallel the picture they’ll present on screen. The human gene which gives rise to the eye does not look like a tiny “eye”. Similarly, the TV wave affecting a picture on a tree on a screen does not already look like a tree of sorts. Similarly and even more so, the spiritual forces which serve as God’s “eyes” do not look like ghosted eyes, or the like. They are precursors which carry from their realms elements necessary to formulate a desired manifestation in physical realm.

God set up these forces to be interactive with human behavior. For example, if a human looks kindly on others and behaves in a more giving way, the “eyes above” are awakened and the person may experience a greater level of supervision by God. Plus, the “hand of kindness” above is also awakened the person may experience kind turns of events.

Truthfully, both the Maimonidean and Kabbalistic approaches co-exist and happen in concert. They absolutely reconcile. The Maimonidean approach is addressing God’s Being, while the Kabbalistic approach is addressing the manifestation of His light within the zone of His creation - be it spiritual or physical.

So, while these forces in spiritual realms are activated another dynamic also occurs; namely, God is aware and behaves in ways that humans rely on organs for. For example, while the “eyes” of the spiritual realms are roused awake, God is also absolutely aware in a way that one endowed with sight would be (and Infinitely more so) - independently of what occurs in the spiritual realms. He does not need a series of spiritual realms to filter or process experiences for him. Also, He could have chosen to relate to humanity without the whole interface of spiritual realms. Though Kabbalah offers reasons why He chose such an interface, Kabbalah also teaches that He is not at all bound by such a choice and can override it at will.  

(To be clear an interface is not an intermediary. An interface is a means which facilitates direct interaction between two entities – like a phone line. An intermediary is a third party who serves as an indirect means of interaction between two parties – such as diplomat, broker, attorney or bureaucrat.)

This reconciliation can serve as one of the probably many examples where Medieval Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah can work together in absolute harmony. If examined with the right set of eyes, each brings along its piece of puzzle to complete the picture. Such harmony of complementary ideas shouldn’t be surprising, as both streams of thought are Torah.

----------------------O---------------------