Above Below

Nothing gets to exist physically without first existing spiritually.

Everything you physically see started off as a spiritual force, still extending from it.

From what spiritual level did it emerge?

Well...that's a different story.

Just remember that not everything that flies is necessarily a bird.

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

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---------------------

Back in Time

Einstein’s time dilation theory teaches that traveling forward in time is possible. Scientists have tested this theory on small scales, like with subatomic particles. It has proven sound. Today the formulas for time dilation are worked into our GPS systems, which wouldn’t perform accurately without them. All this bodes well for traveling forward in time. However, is it possible to travel back in time (at least in theory)?

I have heard a TED Talks expert claim that traveling back in time is just a natural progression of the existing time dilation formula. It goes something like this. As one approaches the speed of light, time gradually slows down. When the speed of light is reached, time utterly stops. When one exceeds the speed of light, one reverses course and travels back in time.

This “reverse time travel” leads to all sorts of discussion about parallel physical universes, which I found entertaining to play with. The claim is that if one were to travel back, whatever s/he does in the past might seriously unsettle life in the present. To avoid such tampering, the time traveler will have to enter a double of our universe.

Despite all the fun in my intellectual sandbox, I bear serious doubts about parallel physical universes. Usually, when I encounter a deep idea, I try to see if it’s mentioned or even hinted at in the Torah, as I understand it. I never encountered as much as a hint of this idea anywhere in my Torah studies. Admittedly, this alone doesn’t mean much. It’s very silly for me to think that I know even a tiny drop of the Torah given to humans, let alone its counterpart which still lingers in the mind of God. Still, if this step is missing I am left wondering.

Next, I began to question of which is less complicated issue, (a) to deal with the possible problems in the present caused by a time traveler tampering with the past or (b) to create a whole new physical universe just to accommodate someone who has traveled back in time?

Certainly, creating a whole new universe sounds like a far more complicated alternative. This is true even if staying in the same universe would alter the present shocking ways - such as people suddenly appearing or disappearing before our very eyes; because of who was or wasn’t born as a result of the new causes planted in our universe’s past.

However, as my younger daughter pointed out to me, these shocking complications do not necessarily have to be. Let’s say someone traveled to the past. Whatever, s/he did is already incorporated into our past. It is after all the past! As a result, our present has already accounted for it. Perhaps, the only remaining complication to consider is what if a traveler where to meet his/her younger self. Under those conditions would they still be two separate human beings, sort of like identical twins, or would they be one consciousness/soul operating through two bodies?

Even though a less complicated scenario is not an automatic indication of a true scenario, with all else being equal, it’s probably a more likely one. Therefore, I feel that it should at least be accorded first consideration.

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

דַעַת/Da'at

Da'at is an elusive topic largely because it does not have a direct English translation. The usual translation in modern English, knowledge, idiomatically means "learned information". Such a translation would not adequately explain many usages of Da'at, For example, "And Adam knew Eve..." leaves the unprepared reader with an exasperated, "What!".

Obviously, Adam didn't impregnate Eve by spending long hours in objective clinical study or by pouring over books. To this the Rabbi Shneur of Liadi teaches that Da'at means hitkashrut, binding, in the sense of when what's in the mind gets integrated with the personality. It's more than just cerebral information. It's identity forming.

There are lots of things a person may know which remains swimming around in his/her head and never affects his/her heart or actions. On the Sefirotic Tree this is known as Da'at Tachton, Lower Da'at. It sits between the upper three Sefirot, which represent the mind, and the next six, which represent the personality/emotions. Anatomically, the seat of Da'at Tachton is likely the medulla oblongata, the brain stem by the nape of the neck.   

Just as there are 50 gates of Binah, understanding, there are 32 paths of Chochma, wisdom (see Sefer Yetzirah). Anatomically, the seat of Binah is the left hemisphere of the brain and the Chochma is the right hemisphere. Between the two is a thick bundle of nerves called the "corpus callosum". This is the likely anatomical seat of Da'at Elyon - upper Da'at. 

Binah is left brain thinking. Though not limited to it, Binah includes analysis and academic thought. During the Omer Count we attempt to unblock our personality to its 50 gates. Binah contemplation, at its best, is the analysis of a topic in all six directions: Up-Down, Right-Left, Front-Back. For example, "Up-Down" is working with an idea along its place in a hierarchical structure. These six directions are really considered seven, when their shared point of intersection is included. Since each of these seven in some way include all seven, we really have 49 gates. The 50th gate, the highest, tends toward Da'at Elyon, where the Binah meets up with Chochma.

From Chochma emerges the 32 paths which are the 10 Sefirot and the 22 Letters. They form the grand template for discovering patterns in spiritual and physical reality. The study of the Sefirot and Letters is the study of the elements of pattern. In Da'at Elyon, Binah thought moves towards pattern and Chochma thought moves toward analysis. It's where the two styles of thinking meet. It's possible that such a situation can lead to or even be Ruach HaKodesh, divine inspiration, a lower level of prophecy (see Rashi on describing the Da'at of Betzalel).

Truthfully, Da'at Elyon and Tachton is one structure of Da'at, the 10 Sefirot of Da'at. Da'at Elyon is the first three Sefirot; Da'at's own Chochma, Binah and Da'at. Da'at Tachton is the lower seven of its overall Sefirotic structure.

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

Flow / Resistance = Music

In a forest, strolling by a stream, I listen for the sounds - the music of nature...

Gentle flowing waters, caws of squirrels, chirps of birds, buzzes of insects n' breezes through leaves.

Immersed in nature's music, it dawns on me that the sounds do not simply resonate off the lonely flows. They need company called,"resistance". The actual music emerges when flow meets a resistance, oh’ so strategically set.

Flutes resist breath. Strings resist fingers. Bodies resist souls.

Perhaps it's time to stop resisting resistances and welcome the instruments which bring forth the music from our flows.

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

The Future, Now!

When the Holy One wants to rescue the Jews from exile, He draws upon them a system of divine providence from the future edge of time; for in the future, nature [as we know it] will be utterly nullified…

~ Rabbi Nathan of Nemirov (LH, Netilat Yadayim 2)

I listened to a lecture by Rabbi Yuval Asherov. He explained that there are two ways to reach beyond the natural order in one’s divine service. One is through self-sacrifice, as happened in the time of Chanukah. The other is through tremendous happiness, as happened in the time of Purim. Both these Holidays are reputed to still be considered something special even after the Messiah arrives.

Considering the quote from Rabbi Nathan of Nemirov (above), it seems that in both these cases, we were rescued from the then state of exile by drawing spiritual light and power from the future edge of time, the deep messianic era; the time right before all of nature as we know it is nullified by being assimilated into a spiritual system beyond nature. In the case of Chanukah, we reached it through self-sacrifice and in the case of Purim, we reached it through tremendous happiness.

Based on this, it’s not surprising that these two Holidays of salvation will stand out as special even in the messianic era; as they are both from the messianic era itself. In that time they won’t be considered part of the past system of divine providence, but recognizably part of the current one. They will fit in nicely with the soul of the times.

What this means to me today as we enter the month Adar is that our happiness can attract the tremendous blessings of the future today. If sustained, it’s possible to even transform today into the future era, especially since we are so close to it anyways and the vessels for such blessings are certainly more developed today than they would have been during the times when the events of Chanukah and Purim happened. So, today it should be easier to attract such blessings than it was then and once attracted there’s a greater chance that they will be here to stay.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe taught that if this generation really wants the messianic era and works for it, it will happen. We’re so close. As we enter Adar, let’s serve our Creator with the happiness to help bring it about. Then not only will we be blessed, but so will the rest of humanity as well.

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