Soul to God relation (another Kabbalah topic)

[DanielR]

Hello all,

me again! Would anyone be so 'kind' to help me with this out? I cannot see or understand the relation of the Human Soul to God according to the Kabbalah.

It is said that God created man in his image, does this mean that the Soul is identical to God, what is the distinction between both of them?

Can I use an example from other philosophies? For example in Yoga, we have the Isvara (God) , Prakriti (matter) and Purusha (the Soul). This is a bit simplified, but when Purusha is free from prakriti (matter) it is pure like Isvara (god) but they are still distinct.

Now I do see some similarities here, is it a bit similar to Yoga philosophy in Kabbalah? Please this was not meant to denounce Kabbalah, just serving as an example.

I'd really appreciate your help! Thanks.

 

[Levite]

Hello all,

me again! Would anyone be so 'kind' to help me with this out? I cannot see or understand the relation of the Human Soul to God according to the Kabbalah.

It is said that God created man in his image, does this mean that the Soul is identical to God, what is the distinction between both of them?

Can I use an example from other philosophies? For example in Yoga, we have the Isvara (God) , Prakriti (matter) and Purusha (the Soul). This is a bit simplified, but when Purusha is free from prakriti (matter) it is pure like Isvara (god) but they are still distinct.

Now I do see some similarities here, is it a bit similar to Yoga philosophy in Kabbalah? Please this was not meant to denounce Kabbalah, just serving as an example.

I'd really appreciate your help! Thanks.

There are different schools of Kabbalistic thought. The answer to this question will be different depending on if you ask it of the pre-Zoharic Kabbalah, Zoharic Kabbalah, Lurianic or Lubavitcher Kabbalah, and may be different depending on the particular authority brought to answer.

The classical Rabbinic answer, which is essentially the foundation of the pre-Zoharic Kabbalah viewpoint, is that the soul is created by God, and is "powered" by the flow of shefa (divine energies) that run through it-- as shefa runs through everything.

One typical Zoharic answer, though there are many positions in this school of thought, is that the soul is made by God, shaped by the flow of shefa in congress with the acts of the individual, but is ultimately "powered" by a seed of divine energy placed at the core of the soul.

The Lurianic answer is a little different, in that Lurianic Kabbalah tends more to monism: for them, the soul is itself a fragment of divine energy, since everything in the universe are, to one degree or another, fragments of divine energy.

The Alter Rebbe (the first rebbe of Lubavitch Chasidism) propels that view a little further, holding that, indeed, everything is God, and the very concept of duality between Creator and created is illusory.

As for tzelem elohim (humanity being created in God's image), this has been interpreted a number of different ways, both in mainstream Rabbinic tradition and in different schools of Kabbalah specifically. The usual answer in Rabbinic tradition is that this refers to human free will. In the various Kabbalistic schools, it usually is not thought to refer to the literal construction of the soul, though there are some who connect the levels of the human soul to the levels of the emantions of God. But there are a multitude of different interpretations of what it means to be in the image of God.

 

[Avi1001]

The Alter Rebbe (the first rebbe of Lubavitch Chasidism) propels that view a little further, holding that, indeed, everything is God, and the very concept of duality between Creator and created is illusory.

Very interesting post, Levite. I have to say I am amazed, I am in full agreement with the Alter Rebbe, at least about everything being G-d. But if I am not mistaken, Spinoza had this idea first. Did the Alter Rabbi adopt Spinoza's idea, or develop it independently ?

I guess the part about the duality is sort of a corollary, so we can go with it.

There are different schools of Kabbalistic thought. The answer to this question will be different depending on if you ask it of the pre-Zoharic Kabbalah, Zoharic Kabbalah, Lurianic or Lubavitcher Kabbalah, and may be different depending on the particular authority brought to answer.

The classical Rabbinic answer, which is essentially the foundation of the pre-Zoharic Kabbalah viewpoint, is that the soul is created by God, and is "powered" by the flow of shefa (divine energies) that run through it-- as shefa runs through everything.

One typical Zoharic answer, though there are many positions in this school of thought, is that the soul is made by God, shaped by the flow of shefa in congress with the acts of the individual, but is ultimately "powered" by a seed of divine energy placed at the core of the soul.

I am sorry to say that I am a bit skeptical about the notion of divine energy. Would you be so kind as to give an example ?

The Lurianic answer is a little different, in that Lurianic Kabbalah tends more to monism: for them, the soul is itself a fragment of divine energy, since everything in the universe are, to one degree or another, fragments of divine energy.

As for tzelem elohim (humanity being created in God's image), this has been interpreted a number of different ways, both in mainstream Rabbinic tradition and in different schools of Kabbalah specifically. The usual answer in Rabbinic tradition is that this refers to human free will. In the various Kabbalistic schools, it usually is not thought to refer to the literal construction of the soul, though there are some who connect the levels of the human soul to the levels of the emantions of God. But there are a multitude of different interpretations of what it means to be in the image of God.

This idea of creation in G-d's image has long troubled me. What does it really mean ? I thought Judaism was non-anthropomorphic. Also, if G-d is everything, how can man be in G-d's image ?

 

[Levite]

Very interesting post, Levite. I have to say I am amazed, I am in full agreement with the Alter Rebbe, at least about everything being G-d. But if I am not mistaken, Spinoza had this idea first. Did the Alter Rabbi adopt Spinoza's idea, or develop it independently?

I would suppose the Alter Rebbe developed the idea himself, out of his understandings of Lurianic Kabbalah. It would be extremely unlikely that he-- a very devout Chasidic leader in Poland/Lithuania and Russia-- would have read Spinoza, a secular philosopher from Holland who had been put into cherem (essentially excommunication) by the rabbinic leadership of his area.

Also, I must say, personally, I cordially loathe radical monism. I think it creates far more theological problems than it solves, and even for extraordinarily esoteric doctrine it cuts far too deeply against the grain of foundational Rabbinic and Biblical thought.

I am sorry to say that I am a bit skeptical about divine energy. Would you be so kind as to give an example?

We call it shefa. It is the energy that flows outward from God's "core" (so to speak), Ein Sof, through the emanations of the Sefirot, both powering and generating the existence of the Four Worlds, maintaining in every moment the act of Creation, and infusing into the created world the various essential aspects of certain parts of God's nature. Such as the shefa which flows from the Sefirah of Binah, which, in part, is responsible for the inherent nature of created phenomena to be comprehensible, to be recognized and named; or the shefa which flows from the Sefirah of Chochmah, which in turn allows us to comprehend phenomena, to organize our knowledge of them, to create nomos within the world.

 

[DanielR]

Thank you all (Levite), it's incredibly hard to find information on the Internet!

 

[DanielR]

Ultimately I was asking myself 'who am I' (in Kabbalistic thought), am I just a vessel for EinSof's light, it's very difficult at the moment for me to grasp these things since also I was influenced a lot by Hinduistic thought.

 

[DanielR]

Another question: Levite, what do you think of Rav Yehuda Ashlag? Is he authentic?

 

[Levite]

Another question: Levite, what do you think of Rav Yehuda Ashlag? Is he authentic?

Sure, he wrote the Sulam commentary on the Zohar. He was authentic: a great scholar.

However, some of his students, and the students of his students, are not. Philip Berg, the founder of the Kabbalah Centre was one of Ashlag's last students, and Berg and his whole family, and their so-called Kabbalah Centre, are nothing but frauds, hucksters, charlatans, and worse. Nothing they produce should be trusted.

 

[DanielR]

Thanks a lot

edit: what about Michael Laitman? Is he part of the Bergs?

 

[Levite]

Thanks a lot

edit: what about Michael Laitman? Is he part of the Bergs?

No, he's not. But he is pretty sketchy. I would not rely on what he teaches.

 

[Avi1001]

I would suppose the Alter Rebbe developed the idea himself, out of his understandings of Lurianic Kabbalah. It would be extremely unlikely that he-- a very devout Chasidic leader in Poland/Lithuania and Russia-- would have read Spinoza, a secular philosopher from Holland who had been put into cherem (essentially excommunication) by the rabbinic leadership of his area.

Also, I must say, personally, I cordially loathe radical monism. I think it creates far more theological problems than it solves, and even for extraordinarily esoteric doctrine it cuts far too deeply against the grain of foundational Rabbinic and Biblical thought.

We call it shefa. It is the energy that flows outward from God's "core" (so to speak), Ein Sof, through the emanations of the Sefirot, both powering and generating the existence of the Four Worlds, maintaining in every moment the act of Creation, and infusing into the created world the various essential aspects of certain parts of God's nature. Such as the shefa which flows from the Sefirah of Binah, which, in part, is responsible for the inherent nature of created phenomena to be comprehensible, to be recognized and named; or the shefa which flows from the Sefirah of Chochmah, which in turn allows us to comprehend phenomena, to organize our knowledge of them, to create nomos within the world.

Please explain what you mean by "radical monism" ?

Does it mean that you consider G-d to be transcendent and eternal ?

What are your thoughts about Maimonides views on these issues ?

Did the Vilna Gaon ban Chasidism ? Why ?

 

[Levite]

Please explain what you mean by "radical monism" ?

Does it mean that you consider G-d to be transcendent and eternal ?

What are your thoughts about Maimonides views on these issues ?

Did the Vilna Gaon ban Chasidism ? Why ?

Radical monism is the notion that there is nothing but God: that Creation and existence are actually illusory, and all apparent things are themselves only different parts of God's unity.

All of these Kabbalistic ideas are mysticism: Maimonides was a rationalist, and rationalist philosophers objected to mysticism as irrational. That tension was one of the defining theological oppositions in medieval Jewish society.

The Vilna Gaon, a mainstay of the mitnagedim (opposers of Chasidism) did put the Chasidim in cherem (essentially a kind of excommunication), because early Chasidism was an ecstatic populist movement, far less concerned with pilpul (fine distinctions of legal theory) than with joyful spirituality. Not only were mitnagedim often non-Kabbalists (although the Vilna Gaon himself was a great Kabbalist), but they were practitioners of mussar (ascetic homiletics), whereas early Chasidim rejected asceticism; Chasidism was also attracting the best and brightest young men to follow the rebbes, and the support of the common folk as well, and thus threatening the continued health of the yeshiva system that dominated Eastern Europe. The contention between Chasidism and mitnagedim eventually fizzled in the face of the threat to traditional Judaism from the outside influences of the Haskalah (Enlightenment), and Chasidism eventually became mainstream in what became known as Orthodox Judaism, and the mitnagedim simply became known as Litvish/Yeshivish, and the mutual objections between them and Chasidism became fairly quiet and restrained.

 

[Avi1001]

Radical monism is the notion that there is nothing but God: that Creation and existence are actually illusory, and all apparent things are themselves only different parts of God's unity.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would agree that since the Enlightenment we know that the universe is of finite age (14 billion years) and was created by the Big Bang, so there is no illusion there. But the notion of G-d's transcendence is not clearly proven, in my view.

Also, it is interesting that since the Enlightenment, philosophy has leaned more toward agnosticism and atheism, it seems that the harder argument to make logically now is the traditional theistic one.

 

[Levite]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would agree that since the Enlightenment we know that the universe is of finite age (14 billion years) and was created by the Big Bang, so there is no illusion there. But the notion of G-d's transcendence is not clearly proven, in my view.

Also, it is interesting that since the Enlightenment, philosophy has leaned more toward agnosticism and atheism, it seems that the harder argument to make logically now is the traditional theistic one.

I wasn't talking about science. I was talking about theology and mysticism.

The Enlightenment is rationalist. Mysticism is arational.

The logic of philosophy, in many Western schools of thought, has become very entwined with scientific reasoning. They are not interested in things which are subjective and experiential, rather than provable through strict logic and material evidence.

 

[Avi1001]

I wasn't talking about science. I was talking about theology and mysticism.

I know.

The Enlightenment is rationalist. Mysticism is arational.

Even though mysticism is arational there should be some benefit for practicing it. Does it only benefit the practitioner or does it also benefit a larger society. If it can also help others, it is rational to practice. If it is superstition, it does not actually even benefit the practitioner, and would be irrational to practice.

The logic of philosophy, in many Western schools of thought, has become very entwined with scientific reasoning. They are not interested in things which are subjective and experiential, rather than provable through strict logic and material evidence.

I think philosophy and scientific reason complement each other well. Sometimes ideas which start out subjective and experiential can be later proved to be true, as we understand them better. They can also be proved to be false, for example, if they are superstition.

Let me give you an example. Lets say I use a mystical approach and reach the conclusion that the wind is created by the trees movement back and forth. I have created a cause and effect relationship that I validate using my senses and mysticism. I am very happy because I understand nature and have developed a model to explain the movement of the wind. Does this mystical approach seem rational to you ?

 

[Levite]

Even though mysticism is arational there should be some benefit for practicing it. Does it only benefit the practitioner or does it also benefit a larger society. If it can also help others, it is rational to practice. If it is superstition, it does not actually even benefit the practitioner, and would be irrational to practice.

First of all, that is-- again-- a utilitarian argument. There are many other reasons to do something besides whether it benefits society in some measurable fashion.

Second of all, you seem to be using the word "superstition" to describe anything that is not based in logical or scientific criteria. However, there are other ways to interact with the world other than science. It's not a case of either/or: there are times and places for both.

I understand that you seem not to be able to value anything that is not pragmatic or quantifiably effective in some way. But many others do not share those paradigm limitations.

I think philosophy and scientific reason complement each other well. Sometimes ideas which start out subjective and experiential can be later proved to be true, as we understand them better. They can also be proved to be false, for example, if they are superstition.

Let me give you an example. Lets say I use a mystical approach and reach the conclusion that the wind is created by the trees movement back and forth. I have created a cause and effect relationship that I validate using my senses and mysticism. I am very happy because I understand nature and have developed a model to explain the movement of the wind. Does this mystical approach seem rational to you ?

Such an hypothesis is not mysticism, and what is more, it misses the point of mysticism. If we were going to make a midrash that wind comes from the movement of trees, what would that teach us? What deeper truths would it symbolize?

It could only be a midrash, because mysticism is not science, nor does it have any interest in pretending to be science. Although mysticism may concern itself with how Divine energy enters the universe or leaves the universe, and even to some extent how it may flow within the universe, it does not concern itself with the literal pragmatics of how biological, geological, and other physical systems operate. The ultimate interest of mysticism transcends the created universe.

Your contempt for what you perceive as superstition is resulting in a simplistic and un-nuanced understanding of mysticism. Reducing mysticism to primitive and misguided attempts to rationally understand nature is essentially the same as if I were to say, "Oh, string theory, quantum mechanics, relativity physics...it's all just playing with numbers and rearranging letters until you find some arrangement nobody really understands to prove something that might be imaginary and that nobody really cares about anyway. It's just something nerds do for other nerds."

 

[Avi1001]

I understand that you seem not to be able to value anything that is not pragmatic or quantifiably effective in some way. But many others do not share those paradigm limitations.

This comes across as a bit arrogant, but it is also not true. I am ok with non-pragmatic and non-quantifiable things as long as they are of benefit to society.

It could only be a midrash, because mysticism is not science, nor does it have any interest in pretending to be science. Although mysticism may concern itself with how Divine energy enters the universe or leaves the universe, and even to some extent how it may flow within the universe, it does not concern itself with the literal pragmatics of how biological, geological, and other physical systems operate. The ultimate interest of mysticism transcends the created universe.

Ok, excuse me, we will call it Midrash. Please tell us, how does Divine energy enter and leave the universe and flow through it ? Also, if you do not concern yourself with pragmatics, how do you know anything you presume is really true ? And what does it mean, "The ultimate interest of mysticism transcends the created universe." ? Are you talking about the spirit ?

Your contempt for what you perceive as superstition is resulting in a simplistic and un-nuanced understanding of mysticism. Reducing mysticism to primitive and misguided attempts to rationally understand nature is essentially the same as if I were to say, "Oh, string theory, quantum mechanics, relativity physics...it's all just playing with numbers and rearranging letters until you find some arrangement nobody really understands to prove something that might be imaginary and that nobody really cares about anyway. It's just something nerds do for other nerds."

Contempt for superstition is an overstatement. Disbelief is better. And your emotional appeal does not strengthen the argument.

 

[Levite]

This comes across as a bit arrogant, but it is also not true. I am ok with non-pragmatic and non-quantifiable things as long as they are of benefit to society.

And how do you quantify what is of benefit to society? And who decides what is beneficial?

Ok, excuse me, we will call it Midrash. Please tell us, how does Divine energy enter and leave the universe and flow through it ?

I don't have the time or the energy to try to explain one of the most complex fundamental notions behind Kabbalah, especially to someone who has already decided that mysticism is superstition. If you are really interested in learning Kabbalah, learn Hebrew and Aramaic, learn Tanach and Gemara, learn the commentaries of the Rishonim on both, start learning Sefer Yetzirah, Sefer ha-Bahir, and the Zohar, and we'll talk.

Also, if you do not concern yourself with pragmatics, how do you know anything you presume is really true ?

There's a reason mysticism isn't front-line exoteric theology. It presumes certain fundamental beliefs, and does not both trying to defend its basic teachings from skepticism. Before I began to learn Kabbalah, I already hashed out my theology in terms of believing in God and believing in the holiness of Torah. Since Kabbalah proceeds from a foundation that God exists and Torah is both holy and, in some way shape or form, of divine essential origins, I am satisfied with my beliefs as they have then been shaped by mysticism. As for the particular schools of mystical thought, my experiences in meditation, in learning from different teachers, on vision quests, and in my own examination and interpretation of the texts and the commentaries on them have gone into making my beliefs into a school of mystical thought. This works because the point of mysticism is not to create objective evidence to convince others.

And what does it mean, "The ultimate interest of mysticism transcends the created universe." ? Are you talking about the spirit ?

About spiritual energy, about the soul, about life after death and before birth/conception, about God, about what we sometimes refer to as the "supernatural," about the metaphysical nature of existence inside and outside the created universe.

 

[Avi1001]

I don't have the time or the energy to try to explain one of the most complex fundamental notions behind Kabbalah, especially to someone who has already decided that mysticism is superstition. If you are really interested in learning Kabbalah, learn Hebrew and Aramaic, learn Tanach and Gemara, learn the commentaries of the Rishonim on both, start learning Sefer Yetzirah, Sefer ha-Bahir, and the Zohar, and we'll talk.

Again, you are presuming my beliefs about mysticism. I would be glad to listen your thoughts on the value of mysticism. And those references you mentioned do look interesting. I would like to learn about them.

There's a reason mysticism isn't front-line exoteric theology. It presumes certain fundamental beliefs, and does not both trying to defend its basic teachings from skepticism. Before I began to learn Kabbalah, I already hashed out my theology in terms of believing in God and believing in the holiness of Torah. Since Kabbalah proceeds from a foundation that God exists and Torah is both holy and, in some way shape or form, of divine essential origins, I am satisfied with my beliefs as they have then been shaped by mysticism. As for the particular schools of mystical thought, my experiences in meditation, in learning from different teachers, on vision quests, and in my own examination and interpretation of the texts and the commentaries on them have gone into making my beliefs into a school of mystical thought. This works because the point of mysticism is not to create objective evidence to convince others.

Very interesting. I can see that you have studied mysticism in a very scholarly manner.

About spiritual energy, about the soul, about life after death and before birth/conception, about God, about what we sometimes refer to as the "supernatural," about the metaphysical nature of existence inside and outside the created universe.

Thanks for sharing these thoughts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For anyone interested: Maimonides and the Sciences is worth reading.