Friday, January 9, 2009

Hi Everyone,

Yes, we finally arrived. Our shiur has its very own Blog. After all with such technologically advanced participants, how could this shiur survive without a blog.

Hold it right there, who says we all agree to have this blog? Hmm good question. Didn't think about it. But now that you’re asking... I would suggest that "Hee Moisiv Loh, Ve'Hee Me'Farik, please be so kind and write all your Terutzim or maybe you Teiku, here on the blog. We can then have here a healthy and presumably hefty debate on the merits of your position or disposition.

In the tradition of the Heilige Bais Hillel and more so if you want to achieve their everlasting victory (oops, until Moshiach comes, that is), it is suggested that before you totally demolish any logical reasoning for having this blog, go ahead and enumerate all the amazing benefits we can glean from it. Be'bchinas "Hikdimu Divrey Bais Shamai Le'Divreihem".

Umm... so where am I? Yeah, ahem, let me try to talk about the issues touched upon (yes only touched upon) at the Shiur. Please have in mind that it's Friday afternoon and I didn't even go to the Mikvah yet, so it won't be so well organized. But, as R' Bachya writes, Min Ha'Zehirus Shloi LeHarbos LeHizoher. On that note, Here goes;

The Sefer Otzros Chaim is explaining the logical progression of existence, (as opposed to chronological. Example, 2 is always after 1 logically, but chronologically they could come into existence at the same instant). Starting right at the beginning, at the very first, at the very deepest, level of existence.

The Sefer starts by saying that this very first level is where we conceptualize existence without its forms, without its definitions.(Which means that we give it no limits) Existence in its ultimate purity is obviously the first level of existence (seems very similar to the age old concept of 'Choimer Ve'tzurah'. But while it is regularly understood as "Matter and Form, we see it here as Exsitence and Form)

Now, once we postulate this unlimited existence (Ein Sof)we want to progress to the next level, to the level of differentiation in existence. But we are confronted with a conundrum, namely, being that we have established a First Step of Unlimited Total Existence, we cannot go anywhere from there for we have effectually closed any possibility for any "other" existences. Existence that knows no boundaries is all invasive, is All, period.
How is it possible to even consider postulating any 'next step' when this first step is all encompassing, this unlimited Existence does not allow for anything else other than this pure Ein Sof. There is no place for anything else, for wherever anything else wants to be, it is already occupied by this limitless Existence.

Yet, (the Sefer goes on), this very same Beli Gevul, "wills" for a world so that It can be realized as Rachum Chanun etc.

EXPLANATION; OF “WILL”
Now, when the word 'Will' is used here it is in the sense of free will, for He/It is not constrained by any characteristics or concepts, which lead It/Him to do anything. So that whatever the next level may be we have to agree that it is not in any way a 'matter of course' from this first pure Existence.
We will always have to realize that it is not a "natural or logical" necessity. In common terminology we would call it a 'whim'. Nothing in the 'nature' or 'character' of this first Existence leads to this next step, for there is no 'character' at all there.
We claim a next step not by logical inference (which would then mean that it is a logical necessity) but simply by observing the brute facts.
We are confronted with the fact of something (seemingly) other than this first Existence. We then obviously ascertain that this Existence wanted or “willed” something else. (We are very clever here, we "know" what He wants by dint of seeing what He did. Be'Bchinas this kid complaining "Rebbe, Moshie Hut Mich Gevolt Geben a Potch, so the Rebbe asks him Ve'Azoi Veistu? Veil Er Hut Mir Gegeben").


EXPLANATION OF EIN SOF WANTING TO BE REALIZED AS RACHUM, CHANUN:
Although we know that Existence has no character traits as discussed above, if we can identify Its "whims" as it express itself in our reality, we will call these 'whims' Its character traits as It relates to us.
Think of a person with a split personality who always relates to you in a certain manner. You will identify his character traits (only as a practical matter) as per his consistent relation to you. You will know that he has a whole other set of characteristics, but when you are only interested in how this person relates and affects you, those characteristics are what matters.

In sum;
However Existence express itself to us, we will call those expression Its character traits. Simply as a practical matter on how to relate to It.

The Sefer (as per Pesukey HaTorah) identifies these expressions/characteristics as Rachum Chanun etc.It is then fair to say that because He wanted to be Rachum, Chanun etc.. He therefore created the world, for as above (with that child), if that is what is expressed it obviously is what It/He wants to express.

So we are now faced with this conundrum of how do we somehow logicaly conceptualize a reality that encompasses an Unlimited Existence [Ein Sof] yet still allows for other exitences as well.

The Sefer's solution; We can somehow conceptualize this unlimited Existence, contracting itself so as to allow for other existence to exist. (If my memory serves me well this will be explained by our Magid Shiur at another Shiur)


AD KAAN TOICHEN HASEFER. (With some explanation added here and there, I might say)


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


The Magid Shiur then posed the following questions.

1) a- Why the Sefer uses Ein Sof Rather than HaKodush Boruch Hu? "Hakodush" refers to His Being proper, and gives us the notion that He is Kodush Umufrash, completely out of our reality etc. Whereas Ein Sof only talks about the fact that this Being is never ending. It doesn't strongly relay the notion that His Essence is completely Beyond.

b- If already talking about its limitlessness He should be referred to as Ein Techilah. That, somehow makes us think more about His whole Kiyum (I'm not clear on this second point).

2) If we are talking about God, and Him/It being totally beyond (disregarding the lack of Hadgasha of this point by using the name Ein Sof, as per par. 1), how can we ask any questions as if we have some knowledge of His/Its characteristics? How are we positing that He/It is all over, so much so that there's no room for anything else. What do we know, and why are we talking about the realm of 'BEYOND'?

These questions leads Chabad Chasidus to interpret the text as follows;

We are avadai not talking about HaKodush... He is way beyond. We are already referring to a world of Hagballah and in that world (which we are in there solidly huh) we should ask ourselves what is the deepest level of "beyond" we can abstract while still on terra firma. What is the ultimate abstraction we can have of our reality? Which will tell us what the first (logical) level/cause of our existence is.

Our consciousness of reality is inextricably bound to limits/Hagboles. Consciousness and awareness is all about defining reality, which means realizing its limits. So it would seem that we shouldn’t be able to conceptualize other than limits. Yet there is one step further that we can go, namely, theorizing about negating these limits. Maybe we cannot conceptualize it, but we can theorize about taking away the limits of everything and anything. That is presumably the closest we can get to the "beyond".

To sum up;
We know that (our) Core Existence [Havayah] is completely beyond conception but we still want to relate conceptually to (our) Core Existence at the deepest level possible. So we came up with Unlimited.We will call that level God (although we know that at that level It is already in a Levush) because conceptually that is our ultimate Existence.

[It may very well be possible to "experience" God non-conceptually and there we can presumably go deeper than the level we have now. This is a whole other topic of discussion]

In Sum;

This Unfathomable Beyond gets expressed at our level by the term Ein Sof. That is the ultimate we can go on a conceptual level. We may phrase this as follows;
The Beyond as it enters/shines into our conceptual framework is concieved as Ein Sof

Please note, it is not the Beyond that has diminished its fullness of being, it is that we have limited our receiving capabilites due to us only accepting concepts.

The above narrative doesn't seem to require any Dogma whatsoever.

All the above is only my interpretation of what our Esteemed Magid Shiur has explained to us along the course of these shiurim.It would be wonderful to have input from all participants and especially from the Magid Shiur.

Ok guys it's really late and I wasn't kidding about the mikvah.

14 comments:

  1. Three little birds

    Pitch by my doorstep

    Singin sweet songs

    Of melodies pure and true,

    Sayin, this is the BLOG for you ou ou.



    Well, yes and no.



    Although this essay is pretty interesting. I don't understand what's the point? Why do you want to know the philosphical underpinning of reallity? Does knowing the philosphical underpinning of the economy help you get rich?

    Without dogma this would be just a philosophy amongst zillion others. Why even suspect that it is the true one? Even within the dogmaticly 'allowed' spectrum there is such variety enough for ten lifetimes. Why then all this tempest in a teapot?

    Chabad Chasidus says according to you, that we are relating to something that isn't really God? Are we missing the boat then?

    If it 'may very well be possible' that we can 'persumably' connect to God in a deeper way, why isn't this rather the 'topic of discussion'?

    By referring to God as He/It, it seems you are wavering between God of Abraham and God of the Philosphers. Can it really be that Chabad sees God as It?

    The way out of your "conundrum" is that God somehow contracted himself. So in the answer as in the question, you see the world as seperate from God. And this is what Chabad of 'Ein Oid Milvado' fame says?

    The answers to the(se) questions are questions themselves. no?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous yes knowing the under pining of economy help us deal with economy, and knowing the essence of our reality might help us deal with our selves.humens has a to much of complications,that we should ignore a philosophy which might help us understand our self.
    and regarding the question about zillion others,this is a good argument as long you dont understand a philosophy u may argue y should i put in effort in this one vs other zillion,but if it make sense to u can't ask y bother with it.abviously it make sense to the othur of the sefer and for al-gaby-luvn.now if by (accident)u came across this philosophy and it make sense to u you might be stuck here.cause (everything) we doing is what i make sense to us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was very excited when I saw this great addition to the blogosphere, kudos for a great assay, spelling out these complex and deep notions, in conceivable terms.

    May the great beyond (some call it GOD) give you endurance, and maintained commitment, to keep up the great work.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow this forest was so lifeless that we are thrown into the famous philosophical question of:

    "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

    Do we really have a Kol Bayaar?

    But seems like I didn't realize your Three Little Birds.

    Ve'Oif Hashomaim Yolich Es Ha'Kol Ba....

    But I need some time myself learn Sichos Ha'oifes.

    Will respond later.

    Although I would love that our Magid Shiur will answer your legitimate isssues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Mugbal

    I understand anons question to be, if there is a zillion answers to this question(I dont know if there is) and any one of those might be the truth, it does indeed require dogma to believe that this one particular answer is the truth.

    Each religion claims to have the answers, and each particular one might be the truth, yet it requires dogma to accept one as the real true answer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zalmen I'm just saying if if it makes sense, even not 100% u should look in to it. And if it doesn’t, then u r right
    But u can’t ask people who claim that to them it make sense without any dogma. Why u bother with some thing that make sense to u.
    And its different then all other goishe religious dogmas although they claim it makes sense to them but them at some point need to use answers like, we have tradition, my father told me, etc. al gaby luven claims that u could, or at least he understands it without any kabuleh
    aderabah pls show me which point is not understandable , this is a personal favor for me, because I agree to u if it doesn’t make sense to you then don’t west time on it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First of all, I was trying to explain how I understood anons question.
    1 in a zillion has a different connotation then "not 100%"

    To me personally, once someone claims to know the behavior or traits of what’s unknown to me, which is what religion does, I accept it as a possibility that might have occurred.

    Logic to me applies only within the realm of known perceivable quantities, the reason its unknown to me is because it is beyond anything that I could perceive.

    I can’t logically disprove any theory that explains how things were, since to me its unknown, therefore it’s a possibility.

    As far as personal favors go I would gladly try my best what I might have an issue with the chabad theory or its explanation, is its claim that this is the only logical progression of events, therefore it must be that this is what happened. I will ask my questions at a different occasion since I have to make sure I really understand the theory in order to ask questions. Also I’m not so afraid of wasting time on nonsensical topics, which isn’t the case with this particular theory since it does make sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon,

    I would agree that if we do not take this philosophy as dogma, there's possibly some merit to what you're saying that we don't need to go so deep into the intricacies of Kabbalistic philosophy. By intricacies I mean like an explanation of some contradiction in the text about Oizen Yemin etc.

    Yet studying any reasonably thought out philosophy is conducive to growing in perceiving ideas and concepts. Understanding the terminology you are confronted constantly (say, Chasidic philosophy)is a major added benefit.
    From a non-dogmatic perspective you will always study it only as one of many philosophies.

    Even the abovementioned intricacies help one understand and delve deeper into these concepts. Yet we have to beware of the 'law of diminishing return', expending too much energy for too little gain.

    As to your general disdain of studying the "underpinning of reality", I would say that Mugbal and Zalmen have pointed out the other side of the argument well enough. Which leaves me with again seeing the merits of your point of view.

    Actually, your disdain is possibly shared by many Chasidic Masters opposed to the cerebral approach of the Chabad Movement. They claimed that experiencing God is the way to connect to our Essence of Being, and, as you aptly pointed out, a much deeper and truer connection.

    But we still keep our options open and allow ourselves to study/experience them all.

    Your issue with calling God "IT" is not related to Chabad. Kabbalah calls God Ein Sof or sometime just Ayin, Nothingness. Yes it's radical and pretty amazing but is just taking the non Hagshamah approach to the ultimate level. No personification and no objectification whatsoever.

    As to your "Ein Od Milvado" issue; it could be that within the conceptual framework there always remains a level of separation. It's only in the realm of Beyond where Chabad claims Ein Od Milvado.
    But this last response is still very murky to me. (as opposed to my other points which are just plain murky)

    On the issue of Dogma I still claim that the narrative written in the post does not fall back on any dogma to explain its position. It's as good a philosophicaly deduced narrative as any other (which you yourself seem to agree).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mugbal,

    A lot of things made sense to me (strongly so) yet later I was mammesh ashamed that I accepted those viewpoints.
    So without dogma I will always (strive to) see and say things with a big question mark at the end.

    Zalmen,

    I basically agree with your first comment. I would just add that your point applies to philosophical theories just the same as to religious ones.

    As to your second comment;
    I'll wait patiently for you to show me where in the narrative do we accept anything (traits or anything else) about whats unknown.
    I respect and, more so, appreciate your asking for time to clarify to yourself my position and then only taking up yours. Truly Be'bchinas "Hikdimu Divrey Bais Shamai Ledivriehem".

    Also, thanks for your kind words.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi all
    I’m really excited to see this blog & special thanks to A.G.L. for this long post. It really addressed some issues in a very clear way. I just have some issues with it so let me shoot.
    Is has been established that when the Sefer says ‘Tchilas Hakol’ the beginning of all matters, we are talking of a logical order, not chronologically. Moving forward on these basis we are yet actively experiencing a world comprised of ‘Gvuel’. At the same time we are convinced by some logical proof that an underlying ’Bli Gvuel” coexists, & obviously we are saying that this might have very well always been the case. We also agree that all Gvuel is part of that Bli Gvuel, no matter by what fancy mechanics one would explain that happens, they coexist now as always.

    All of this said, looking at the text of the sefer at my first glance it seems that by saying ‘Veloy hoiyu shim chulel v’shim avir puni’ basically no room available for anything to exist besides for Bli Gvuel, he is putting forth some sort of logical argument that in a place of Bli Gvuel there is no room for Gvuel. (Dear Al gabi lovon, I can see your face but hey, give the guy a chance. You’ll get a chance once I’m done.) Now while we might have no issue with them coexisting since we don’t know the form of Bli Gvuel to say for certain that they can’t coexist, but since the sefer is addressing the issue of coexisting, I would guess that the text that follows is to give a solution to that problem, & to actually explain those fancy mechanics. According to your explanation of “will” he does not address how it happens. He’s just reporting the facts that happened.

    This leads me to consider that by saying ‘Loy hoyu cholel’ is “maybe” not talking about gevuel not fitting. (If they can coexist then one does not logically belong before the other since it is really one form). My only other way to interpret this is that he claims that Bli Gevul did not “have” to carry the form of Gevul as well, since the Bli Gevuel is free to exist in any form. In this case he says he took the form of Gevuel because this is obviously what was his will.

    My problem is: that it is Mashmeh that the text is trying to address an issue by saying ‘Ikesheula Birtzono and Lesiba Noidass’ he is more then saying Raboisai he didn’t have to include gevul but (lucky us) that’s what he whims.

    My only other solution would be that the sefer assumes we are totally clear & convinced on 2 items: 1- Bli gevuel exists, 2- Gevuel could not be part of it.
    Therefore we have to assume that we (as part of B”G) have a misperception that we perceive all as gevuel. If this is the case while the sefer needs not explain the mechanics since it never happened, yet he still maintains that a misperception can’t logically be the first form. Therefore he finds a need to explain that this misperception highlights some perfections of the Bli Gevuel.

    Sorry, but this last thought is in its embryonic stage. I don’t understand half of what I’m saying, it just happens after a day roaming around alone in the woods.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Definitely,

    You write,
    "I would guess that the text that follows is to give a solution to that problem, & to actually explain those fancy mechanics. According to your explanation of “will” he does not address how it happens. He’s just reporting the facts that happened"

    Why can't the Sefer read as follows,

    Here's the simple Narrative;
    In the beginning there was Ein Sof (not mammesh beginning, but beginning at hagboleh level)
    And this Ein Sof Does not allow for anything to exist. But there's this "will/whim" to be expressed through being Rachum.. so It contracts itself (Metzamtzem).

    The "will" part is still explaining what caused there to be hagbolah. The conraction part is explaining how it coexists.

    You Write;
    "(If they can coexist then one does not logically belong before the other since it is really one form)"

    Interesting point there if the case would be that they could coexist logically. But they cannot coexist hence the need for the Tzimtzum explanation (on which we'll have to wait for the next shiur to understand it)

    "in its embryonic stages" are you pro choice?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Al-gabai : you write “In the beginning there was Ein Sof (not mammesh beginning, but beginning at hagboleh level)
    And this Ein Sof Does not allow for anything to exist. But there's this "will/whim" to be expressed through being Rachum.. so It contracts itself (Metzamtzem)

    The "will" part is still explaining what caused there to be hagbolah. The conraction part is explaining how it coexists.”
    Lets first again address the “will’ part of the equation, then we’ll have a wrestle on theTtimtsum side of it.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would understand that the reason you are tip toeing around the word “will” is, for in it’s common use “will” is the reason for a “change”, in other words the reason existed prior to (either chronologically or logically ) to the state of after the change, came upon change & reconciled the state of being with that “will”. In that case”will” can be called the reason for the change since change satisfied him, he didn’t satisfy change.
    Since you don’t feel that we are in the position of claming that a reason for “change” existed in Ein Sof
    (either because if the reason for the change exited in Ein Sof then you can’t even call it change – or simply since we don’t have a right to say anything in Ein Sof that we don’t have a direct observation from the current state). to avoid that problem you addressed it from bottom up , we see the state of the world that indicates that he is “rachim”, why is he rachim well he has free will & that’s what he wants.
    ________________

    Now let me express my issue
    From my point of view your starting point has to be one of the 2 options
    1-the first logical state has in it (or at least could have in it) the character of rachim, & therefore automatically has within it Gevuel. That’s what I meant by “If they can coexist then one does not logically belong before the other since it is really one form"
    2-the first logical state does not include rachim, & it changed into a form that does include rachim. if that the case please be so kind & don’t jump over where the real action happens, the change of state fro mnone rachim to rachim , which does demand the harsh words of “ will”, & don’t just deal with the phase after change & thereby claim that we are dealing with a subtle for of ”will”.
    Mamesh Be'bchinas Mha Huilyy Chachomim Betakantom.

    I got to go; I hope still to address with you the issue of Timtzum today.

    BTW you asked if I’m pro choice, are you telling me that the way you see this baby is forming I should opt for an abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear D.M.
    In your first post u write “At the same time we are convinced by some logical proof that an underlying ’Bli Gvuel” coexists”,
    How do u proof it? I am not asking regarding the coexists part, just that it exists.

    It seems to me u r asking since we don’t know any think about the bli gvul y do we need tzumtzem in order gvul should exists? wasn’t this the whole idea of chabad that in the level of bli gvul we do know this little, that its bli gvul to the utmost and gvul cant exsist there with out tzum...
    I understand if u ask y we have 2 levels, atzmes &bli gvul, and because of this we need tzimtzum ,cut out the bli gvul and have gvil exsisiting in atzmes.

    ReplyDelete