As always, this is a work in progress.
Here’s my interpretation of last weeks shiur.
We extrapolate from our own limited existence that Existence is way beyond our conceptualization.
Ohr Ein Sof is the deepest and most abstract level that we grasp the Essence of God, conceptually.
Knowing full well that this grasping is limited to the capabilities or out grasping mechanism, i.e. we are trying to grasp It as a concept (grasping by definition is conceptualizing) so we will not go beyond concept.
Yet the concept of Ohr Ein Sof doesn’t allow for us to exist. (see previous shiurim)
So we are faced with a conundrum; we extrapolate Atzmus and in turn Ohr Ein Sof from our own existence yet that selfsame Ohr Ein Sof requires for our complete non existence. Something’s gotta give.
Let me introduce here a common question asked by many. Can God annihilate Himself, or is He Muchrach in His Existence?
Well, the doctrine of Tzimtzum seems to posit that God can and actually does annihilate Himself. How’s that for a Kol Yochel? How’s that for going to new heights in glimpsing the total Ayin of Atzmus?
Tzimzum claims that Atzmus voluntarily annihilates the very natural self determination or self expression of its own Being.
But how can Atzmus pull this off you ask indignantly?
Tut tut, haven’t you promised to be a passive bystander to the machinations of Atzmus? Haven’t you agreed that we won’t even try to understand Atzmus we will only try to understand the conceptual process of what Atzmus acts out? What part of Beyond is beyond you?
The logical/conceptual process is then as follows;
1- Extrapolation of ‘Beyond’ (call it Atzmus if you like) from our own existence.
2- Realizing that our recognition of point 1 is essentially recognizing It as Ohr Ein Sof.
3- Realizing that this Ohr Ein Sof annihilates itself completely thus making room for our existence.
[a point of contemplation;
Using the term “Atzmus does this, Atzmus does that” is deceptive, for then I have somehow made it into something concrete. It would then seem that we are saved from complete annihilation of God because at the end of the day we still have Atzmus to fall back on.
But that’s not accurate. We actually do lose all and every word, name, identity, being, existence, (yes even existence) of God thru Tzimtzum. We are not just pushing His Essence to a different place, we are not just changing His name from Ohr Ein Sof to Atzmus. Otherwise it’s like playing games here.
Almost like the guy that is devastated that he lost his most precious diamond. But when asked if he checked in this particular place he answers “I don’t want to look there, because if it’s not there either then it’s really over”.
Am I coming dangerously close to Tzimtzum KePshuto. Who knows. Or maybe we need to clarify how Tzimtzum Shelo Kepshuto still agrees to the above and doesn’t make a sham of the whole doctrine of Tzimtzum.
Look at it this way; We have heard the term Ayin being used for God. think how deceptive that could be. Ayin means 'nothing', as simple as that, but when it's being used for God we sort of say it as if there's that thing out there (granted, it's totally 'out there') that is called Ayin. But that is pretty silly, we have made Ayin into a thing and we are really missing the point. The same goes to our use of "Atzmus" or "Beyond". we are somehow giving it a certain "thingness" when in reality we really should understand that it has no existence in any way shape or form.
Yet I agree that there still should be an understanding why we do call it a certain way like calling It Atzmus. Ve'Oid Cahzoin]]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And this is the way I interpret Al_Gabai_Lavan’s interpretation of the Magid Shiur’s interpretation of the way Chassidus Chabad interprets the Otzros Chaim… ad infinitum… bli-gevul…
ReplyDeleteLet us grow up. Shall we?!
If we are studying Eitz Chaim/Otzros Chaim (as taught by the Chabad school of thought), we should then study it to understand the meaning of the text (and the way Chabad interprets it). Period. It should be subjected to critical study, examination, analysis and debate, and we should ponder if we can make sense of it or not. And the option of “not” has to be a viable one. At minimum, we will at least know the text (and the way Chabad interprets it).
We should then have the ability to 1) proceed and offer alternative methods of learning the text, and 2) feel free to suggest alternative insight into these topics - even if they are “different”, unconventional and unorthodox.
While we are dealing with text of esoterica, which is sometimes archaic and (perhaps intentionally) elusive, which does give us some extra leeway in interpreting it, nevertheless I think we can all agree that there is a limit (gevul) to how much we can attempt to harmonize all ideas (good and bad) with the text. If we want to be intellectually honest, we can push it only to a point, and we have to keep an open mind if we can make sense of it or not. Then we can go on and offer alternatives and debate them.
So while Gabai Lavan offers insightful perspective on these topics and expresses himself eloquently, it doesn’t always have to be offered as an interpretation of the text or the Shiur. It can be offered as a suggested alternative to the interpretation of the text. Or as an alternative to the text.
With regards to what Al_Gabai_Lovon writes: “So we are faced with a conundrum; we extrapolate Atzmus and in turn Ohr Ein Sof from our own existence yet that selfsame Ohr Ein Sof requires for our complete non existence. Something’s gotta give…”
Well Nothing (Ayin) gotta give…
Nothing (Ayin) gives.
But contrary to what Al_Gabai_Lavan writes, it is the “Ohr” that gives; not Atzmus. It is the Ohr that withdraws and conceals itself, thereby revealing the Atzmus; and what it gives us is a paradoxical reality.
This paradox is not one to explain, solve and overcome. On the contrary, it is a paradox that we live out. It is what makes us tick. This is our true reality of Rotzu and Shuv (ascent and descent). It is the vibrancy of life. The push and pull (no sexual connotation) of life. The tension, the excitement, opposition and chemistry of life.
This conundrum is the core of our conflicting existence. Chabad embraces this paradoxical underpinning of our reality, and it is what Chabad contemplation (Hisboinenus) is all about
Our human thought and contemplation alludes to a transcendent Ayin, perceiving the Ayin conceptually, outside of our reality. However the Ayin is contemplated to be an immanent divinity that is all inclusive and pervasive. It doesn’t allow anything outside of it. Ein Oyd Milvadoy!.
The Chabad school (as per its interpretation of Kaballah) aims at instilling the reality of this existential paradox into the rhythm of our religious consciousness. Not to attempt to escape it. But to live it. On the one hand, our human consciousness (via contemplation) alludes to the Ayin, to the transcendent beyond, and we yearn to release ourselves from our conceptual shackles and to be engulfed and annihilated (Bitul) in the divine emanation (Ohr) that we perceive. It is actually this same “Ohr” which we (only) conceive that also paradoxically tells us that in this current perception is impossible because there is nothing “outside”.
This is what the Tzimtzum process is all about. On the one hand the Tzimtzum process creates the perceived “void” that exists outside of Atzmus. On the other hand we contemplate the divine Ayin (via its Ohr) which doesn’t allow for any outside existence, because it is only the Ohr of the Ayin that we can “contemplate”. But simultaneously while perceiving this Ohr after its Tzimtzum, it allows for us to connect to Atzmus, which is our true essence but just concealed by the “Ohr”. If it is “Ohr” to us humans, if we can “perceive” it, it is a concealment on the Atzmus. Because Atzmus is absolute. So God “concealing” his essence by its very nature makes it “perceivable” to us. The more the concealment the more “Ohr” it is to us and the better we grasp it. This perception (the ability to perceive) is created by the Ohr; it creates a perceiver of the Ohr.
It is actually the “kol yochol” aspect of the Atzmus which can allow this paradox. And this is what the “tzimtzum” accomplishes, by concealing the glare of the contemplative “ohr”, it allows for us to connect with our true existential reality, which is the paradoxical nature of Atzmus, which cannot be contemplated, but it is greater than contemplation (itself a concept). It is our existence. Our paradoxical existence. Atzmus is the true beyond. It is higher than revelation (Giluy) and understanding. We ultimately have to recede (Tzimtzum) to our intuitive core, and we have realize that our ultimate core is beyond and greater than what we can achieve through our intellect.
It is this “paradox” in the duality of our nature that militates Chabad to insist that there was no real “Tzimtzum” in Atzmus. Because if something truly exist outside of Atzmus, it can never truly get absorbed into Atzmus. The very paradox of our nature, being the “subject”, the “perceiver” on the one hand and the realization that this is a conundrum because our rationalization dictates that nothing can be on the outside looking in, dictates that our contemplative nature is also external (outside) of our true core existence which is Atzmus.
Mr. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWow! so many beautiful, exciting, (and inciting?) points.
[Feeling very bold there under the cloak of anonymity huh? ok, I couldnt resist, please forgive.]
As to your first point, I'd like to say that there was no ulterior motive it was simply my honest shot at explaining how I understand the concepts elaborated at the Shiur.
Yet, your point is well taken. I will try to first write the Shiur almost in its bare bones and then add my interpretation. Let's see if that will work.
ok, inciting part taken care of, let's get to the exciting stuff you write.
I would like to take time and read it over thoroughly. Neverthelless here goes;
You write;
"But contrary to what Al_Gabai_Lavan writes, it is the “Ohr” that gives; not Atzmus. It is the Ohr that withdraws and conceals itself, thereby revealing the Atzmus; and what it gives us is a paradoxical reality."
But I am suspicous about how we use this concept so freely. As I updated in my post, (one before the last paragraph) we are very prone to contradict ourselves when using Ayin or Beyond.
Ayin is Ayin is Ayin. Nothing Zilch Nada. Yet we use it as if there's something called Ayin.
Once we truly accept Ayin as nothing, we will realize that by annihilating the Ohr Ein Sof we have effectively annihilated His Existence. We will realize that however we will see and contemplate God, resorting to all kinds of name calling imaginable (or unimaginable) we are effectively in the realm of Ohr Ein Sof. When we then accept a Tzimtzum of this Ohr Ein Sof we have to completely erradicate the name of God at that juncture. (did i actually say that, oh my God). It seems to me that otherwise it's just a sham.
Gotta go now, Will coninue B"EH
I think that this is a good place to start. What is the definition of “Atzmus”.
ReplyDeleteI know that we discussed this in previous shiurim, and everyone seems to maintain that Atzmus means “the beyond” that cannot be contemplated, conceptualized or even spoken about in any possible way. Effectively, Atzmus is relegated to “Nothingness”.
However, this is where I think Chabad’s revolutionary hypothesis comes into play.
The foundation of Chabad’s theosophical approach is that “the beyond” of Atzmus is the Absolute Presence of the divine essence in all matter and all reality. The spiritual, the material, the conceptual, the logical, the illogical. The everything and the nothing. The positive and the negative. It is equally both the Ayin and the Yesh. It all has one inner (hidden) core. Any and all reality is comprised of this one essence. It is the Great Equalizer (the Noisei Hafachim) of all reality.
The reason it is “beyond” is because it cannot be conceptualized at all. Because it is the single and sole substance of all reality. The black and the white, the positive and negative are all just varied mutations of the Absolute Reality (these mutations are a result of the different manifestations – Ohr – of his Absolute Presence). One cannot in any way postulate or conceptualize about it because it is all encompassing. But that does not mean that “the beyond” is withdrawn, distanced or disengaged from reality. On the contrary. It is Nothingness because we just cannot talk about it. All concepts are meaningless. We cannot talk about it or understand it because we can only relate to concepts (gevul). But nevertheless, Chabad maintains that while we cannot talk about it or understand it, it is still our reality. Nothing can mean nothing because it is not comprised of anything because it is non-existent, or it can mean Nothing because it is all concepts. Nothing is “outside” of it. So Atzmus = Everything – and therefore it is referred to as “Nothing” because it is not limited to any one specific thing and it is not excluded from any thing or concept.
So when Al_Gabai_Lovon says in his last paragraph that:
“in reality we should understand that it has no existence in any shape of form”, or “Ayin is Ayin is Ayin. Nothing Zilch Nada. Yet we use it as if there's something called Ayin.”
I would say that “in reality it has all existence in every shape and form” because it is every shape and form. Now for us “existence in every shape of form” is effectively “no shape or form” because we can only conceptualize and conceptualizing by its very nature sees things through differentiation. And this is why it is “beyond”, beyond any possible glimpse or conception and understanding (Nothing as “Loy Isramez B’shum Oys etc”).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo sum it up another way, I will quote Al_Gabai_Lovon again from his first post of the shiur of Parshas Yisroi:
ReplyDelete“So we are faced with a conundrum; we extrapolate Atzmus and in turn Ohr Ein Sof from our own existence yet that selfsame Ohr Ein Sof requires for our complete non existence. Something’s gotta give.”
Al_Gabai_Lovon’s assumption is that either 1) Atzmus/Ohr Ein Sof has to give or 2) our existence has to give.
The fixed entity is assumed to be the “logic” of “something’s gotta give”.
Well, it is the “fixed logic” (of “something’s gotta give”) that’s gotta give!
And that’s exactly the point.
We naturally look at things from our vantage point, from our rationalization, and see ourselves, our consciousness, our intellect, as the fixed point of reference and everything else as fluid outside stream.
Chabad comes and says that what’s “gotta give” is your own frame of reference, which is relative and deceptive and limited.
Chabad’s school of thought is to instill (indoctrinate ?) into or religious consciousness to see the world from the point of reference of the divine, and from this realistic point of reference all plurality is really the divine, even though from our point of reference our plurality seems to be outside, and contradictory and denying to the very nature of our perception of Atzmus.
This might come as a surprise, but Chabad expects the person to make that first fundamental leap of faith. It then expects full comprehension of the divine with all our intellectual faculties. But it expects us to accept and understand that this same Atzmus that we ponder, and assume is the first cause of this creation is ultimately beyond our intellect. The Alter Rebbe clearly states in Tanya (and in more places in Chassidus) that it impossible to comprehend this Ultimate Paradox.
At one point of another in this entire study of creation, you have to make the leap of faith of “kol yochol”. And Chabad asserts that kol yochol paradox in the essence of our existence. (Separate conversation why that is preferable).
Chabad then expects us to work on ourselves and strive to bring this religious/Chassidic hypothesis (or reality, of course)) into a more concrete experience. Chabad teaches that this divine perspective, that all plurality is part of his undivided Essence, is accomplished by undressing and stripping (!) the mask of the outside perspective that has been created by the Tzimtzum (contraction=conception). And this can only be done through Torah and Mitzvos (I will leave this to Al_Gabai_Lovon to explain how this works).
This is what Chabad teaches.
Now this is the (fixed) point of reference of Chabad theology.
Now who ever wishes can discuss, analyze, agree, disagree, or offer alternatives.
PS. when Al_Gabai_Lovon writes at the end of his first comments (in response to my comment) that “Gotta go now, Will continue B"EH”, I hope he didn’t mean that he will continue to “eradicate the name of God” which he writes two lines earlier.
much ado about "nothing"...
ReplyDeleteYou write in your first comment;
ReplyDelete“But contrary to what Al_Gabai_Lavan writes, it is the “Ohr” that gives; not Atzmus. It is the Ohr that withdraws and conceals itself, thereby revealing the Atzmus; and what it gives us is a paradoxical reality.”
But Ohr is the only way that we can even dare contemplate Atzmus. Ohr is the Shem Hakollel for all the terms we think about God, including the term called Atzmus. Ohr is the conceptual contemplation of God. It should follows that when and if we don’t have this Ohr we do not have ANY idea about God, even the idea of Atzmus is not here.
My point being that however far out you’ll exile Atzmus, as long as you talk/think about it, it’s an idea, a concept. This idea should get lost when we claim not to have God in the realm of ideas, i.e. Tzimtzum.
Yet I’m not sure about this….
Atzmus is not an idea, it's a fact, you say.
ReplyDeleteBut what's a fact if not an idea.
Your frame of reference is wrong.
ReplyDeleteEverything is Atzmus. This is a fixed reality. As per Chabad.
Tzimtzum is what makes the perception of the outsider, but only the “perception” and the ability to grasp the divine conceptually.
Tzimtzum by its very process is also contraction of the Ohr, which reveals our true reality.
= paradox, rotzu v’shuv, challenge of what we see via our perception, and what our essence is.
It is through the reverse process of Tzimtzum – by allowing our true reality to overcome our conception/logic, via Torah and Mitzvos, that our true essence of Ein Oyd Milvadoy can come into full perception. The ultimate paradox.
The 'one without a name" writes;
ReplyDelete"PS. when Al_Gabai_Lovon writes at the end of his first comments (in response to my comment) that “Gotta go now, Will continue B"EH”, I hope he didn’t mean that he will continue to “eradicate the name of God” which he writes two lines earlier."
Yup he possibly did mean to continue on that path, sorry to disappoint.
Shouldn't we get rid of the Chet of Dor Enosh and be Metaken the "Oz Huchal Likroh Be'SHEM Hashem"?
The best and truest moments of our lives are our completely un-selfconscious moments. Not when we call ourselves by name.
Wouldn't you find that applicable to God, our true essential being?
I am not questioning your logic. And the paradox is impossible to accept intellectually. But Chabad wants you to assume this belief as a fact. At some point if you are positing that there is a God who created the creations ex nihilo, then you are automatically assuming the illogical. Again Chabad teachings specifically says that this is not something that the "human mind can grasp". So I am basically trying to understand if you are suggesting that this is not what Chabad teaches or you are questioning the logic of its theology? In another words are you assuming that Chabad's theosophy of creation and Ein Oyd Milvadoy should be something that is intellectually coherent without having to rely on "faith" whatsoever?
ReplyDeleteCorrection. Paragraph should have read: "PS. when Al_Gabai_Lovon writes at the end of his first comments (in response to my comment) that “Gotta go now, Will continue B"EH”, I hope he didn’t mean that he "will continue B"EH (b'ezras hashem) to “eradicate the name of God” which he writes two lines earlier."
ReplyDeleteyou write:
ReplyDelete"Everything is Atzmus. This is a fixed reality. As per Chabad.
Tzimtzum is what makes the perception of the outsider, but only the “perception” and the ability to grasp the divine conceptually."
you went from Atzmus to Tzimtzum, you skipped Ohr Ein Sof.
According to our shiurim Ohr Ein Sof is the light that shines into the realm of concepts (seperateness). Only when we see God thru a lense of concept can the Otzros Chaim have the problem of "VeLoi Hayah Shom Mokum Ponu"...
Tzimtzum is required BECAUSE we have conceptualized God.
Al_Gabai_Lovon writes: "The best and truest moments of our lives are our completely un-selfconscious moments. Not when we call ourselves by name. Wouldn't you find that applicable to God, our true essential being?"
ReplyDeleteAh! that's exactly the point. As per Chabad the ultimate reward (attainable through Torah and Mitzvos and proper Avodas Hashem) will be that we will be able to achieve the ecstasy of the unconsciousness while we are conscious with all our senses and conceptions! The ultimate paradox. Chabad doesn't say Bitul and therefore completely annihilate/extinguish your faculties/consciousness/corporeality/klois hanefesh, but rather "v'Ohavta", you should achieve the divine perspecive (of yichuda ilaa) with your conceptual faculties (yichuda tataa). The ultimate is not that the human perspective capitulate to the divine perspective that ein oyd milvadoy but rather that the divine perspective and the human perspective be seen from both angles exactly the same way! The rotzu v'shuv still attainable while understanding that there really is no outsider. Yes. It is a paradox.
I don't understand your correction. your words were well understood in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMy response was that I'm eradicating the "name".
Name means that there's me and there's this thing outside me...
Being completely un-self-concsious is when we are one with reality WITHOUT KNOWING THAT WE ARE ONE.
I actually think I understand this issue thru the cutsey part of our dialouge.
Atzmus cannot be explained because we are 'so one' that we don't even have the slightest notion that we are one.
And yes, I think that all this can be understood without resorting to 'leap of faith'.
I agree that this is the way that it was discussed in the shiurim. However, if you remember someone asked how come the Ohr has to be emanated and then contracted? Why not just to begin with only emanate the measured "ohr"? And the same person answered that the question is illogical. Because God did not have to create anything. All Shleimus was there (including the paradox). Therefore Atzmus inherently also had the properties of Ohr too. Now creation is all within Atzmus. It is concealement of existing propeties. So this initial Ohr that is paradoxially a single essence with Atzmus (connoting the possibility of conception and outsider) doesn't have to be created. It is there.
ReplyDeleteNow the tzimtzum process is the method where the outsider perception is developed, and in order to develop it, the "Ohr" part has to be conracted and custom tailored to creation and specifics of creation.
Heavy stuff here. Let me think about it and respond tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess b"eh was meant to abbreviate beazres haatzmus
ReplyDeleteNo! Bezras HaShem Davka!
ReplyDeleteOnce we lose our total innocence, once we are completely out of the paradigm of Atzmus, we are only left with conceptual God, Ohr Ein Sof if you will. Through contemplation (like we are doing now) of Ohr Ein Sof (the 'Name of God' level) we realize that we need to get out of this whole realm, do a paradigm shift and live Atzmus.
Davka B'ezras Ha'SHEM do we eradicate the name of God. Once we have/live Atzmus we don't eradicate the name, we're past it already.
I don't know what out of the paradigm of Atzmus means and what paradigm shift means. I guess u mean that the Atzmus is eclipsed by the Ohr. But you are suggesting that the consciousness alludes to the superiority of unconsciousness (Atzmus). But isn't this order of preference priority itself conceptual?! And aren't you by your very definition bifurcating Atzmis to me excluded from consciousness? Is this Achdus Hashem? Chabad stresses the goal of paradox that the goal is to achieve the "hashem echod ushmoy echod". Your consciousness will be part of Atzmus WITHOUT losing consciousness! Do you ever encounter moments in your life where bliss and ecstasy overwhelms you where you feel that you are hovering between consciousness and unconsciousness?! Rotzu v'Shuv? Some of the greatest pleasure in life can only be experienced in this state of consciousness being an outsider aching to be engulfed... Don't eradicate the consciousness. It is completely denying Achdus Hashem.
ReplyDeleteMr. Anon,
ReplyDeleteIt is now that I finally had a chance to read through your first comment. Please read my new post (Shiur Parshas Mishpotim) and let me know if we are on the same page here.
Thanks