Theology Letter 44, Section E (4)
RAV KOOK'S
LETTERS
By Rav Tamir
Granot
Lecture #11b:
Letter 44,
Section E Theology Part 2
Rav Kook's Innovation: The
Malkhut of "Consciousness"
Rav Kook's innovation can be
understood as an interpretation of one sentence from the Alter Rebbe: "To be a
world... a complete universe and a separate thing by
itself."
It can thus be asked: Is the world
indeed "separate," or is it part of a monistic singularity? Are we part of the
Divine or an independent universe? RSZ explained that independence stems from
the delimitation of reality in space and time. But we know that space and time
are not categories of reality, but categories of reason, forms of perception! We
do not perceive space and time within reality as objective facts; we perceive
reality from within the rational forms of space and time (this is a summary of
Kant's teachings on this issue).
This opposition in the description of
the nature of space and time as categories of reality (as they were apparently
understood by RSZ) or as categories of perception (in the formulation of Kant
and Rav Kook) allows us to better understand the profundity of the idea that
RSZ expresses about reality being the source of the sefira of
Malkhut. Malkhut, Rav Kook explains, is not a function of ontology
but a function of epistemology; the product of Malkhut is not reality in
which there are space and time but a consciousness that contains the
transcendent categories of space and time. Before this consciousness, reality
was an undifferentiated singularity. Malkhut, as explained, requires
alterity but this alterity is subjective, not objective. Thus, human
consciousness, which is essentially subjective (the existence of the "I" the
existence of independent subjects), is the offspring of Malkhut. Since we
have consciousness, we do not merely exist as part of reality, we also perceive
it from the outside via our consciousness. The subject who is external
(transcendent) to reality contemplates it from within his own consciousness and
expresses his separateness from it. There is "me" and there is reality outside
of me.
This effectively explains the
statement of the Zohar that Malkhut has nothing of its own (see
the explanation): Malkhut is only consciousness, a form of perception
it is not substance but it determines our perception of reality. The world
that we contemplate from within our Malkhut-consciousness is the world of
subjective consciousness, created to allow for our subjective existence as
distinct from the monistic Divine world. From this perspective, Kantian
epistemology and kabbalistic epistemology as explained by Rav Kook are identical
in that they agree that we only recognize phenomena the world as it appears in
our consciousness and not the world as it exists outside our
consciousness.
Between Kant and Rav
Kook
The major difference
between our epistemology and Kant's is in the relation toward reality beyond
consciousness.
Divinity is the
source of consciousness, and it therefore cannot be directly comprehended.
Consciousness, which allows us to recognizes ourselves as independent subjects,
forces us into its patterns of thought (space, time, multiplicity) and does not
allow for direct recognition of the Divine.
The error of both
paganism and non-Jewish monotheism rests on this point. Since they attempted to
perceive Divinity through reason, they were forced to define it to turn it
into a comprehensible entity. The attempt to grasp Divinity through
consciousness turned Divinity into something outside of it since consciousness
is always directed toward that which is outside it. Consequently, Divinity must
be considered as an object, as perfect an object as it can
be.
How do we relate to
Divinity? We have already seen one perspective on how we relate to the Divine in
the previous shiur: we relate to it through its manifestations in the
limited reality. We recognize that the entire multiplicity that our
consciousness perceives is essentially Divine unity that our reason and
perception grasp as multiplicity:
But God is beyond all
reality of which any sense or idea can enter within us, and anything that is
beyond all sense and idea of ours is, in our estimation, null and void, and the
mind cannot
come to rest on what is null and void [i.e., we cannot grasp Divinity
directly, as one grasps an object]...
We must show the way
into the banquet hall through the gate. The gate is Divinity that is expressed
in the world, in the world in all its beauty and majesty, in every soul and
spirit, in everything that lives and crawls, every plant and flower, every
nation and kingdom, the sea and its waves, the panorama of the heavens and the
glory of its luminaries, the capabilities of all living things, the ideas of
every writer, the imaginings of every poet, the insights of every thinker, the
emotions of all who feel, and the stormy courage of every
hero...
When the longing for
this light reaches its highest point, it begins to draw a great abundance of
light from the hidden light that it deep within it, and it is expressed from
deep within it, since everything draws light from the highest source, and all
the worlds and everything within them are nothing but expressions that appear to
us as individual sparks of that higher expression of light, but when they are
all a single unit, a single revelation, in which all beauty, light, truth, and
goodness is contained (Orot, Zeronim, ch.
1).
On the other hand, we
know that Divinity (the Name of Havaya in the Tanya's terminology)
is the source of everything, and even though the source is not directly
comprehensible ("the source of all is the incomprehensible Infinite"),
nevertheless, the idea that all of the multiplicity within reality is rooted
within the perfect Divine Being and that even our consciousness itself, which
projects the world's multiplicity to us, is an offshoot of the Divine unity
fills us with great joy as well as intense striving to become exalted and to
approach the greatness of Divine goodness, which is the source of
everything.
Kant, whose thought
was still rooted in the pagan world, claimed that the object, the world beyond
consciousness, has no meaning for us. He understood this object being as the
external data of consciousness.[1] We, on the other
hand, understand that this "object" is not outside consciousness, but is its
source. Consciousness is what "casts us out" to contemplate the world from a
transcendent dimension.
As I noted in the
explanations to the letter, this is also how the various names for the
sefira of Malkhut can be explained. Malkhut is the "I"
(ani) because it is the root of subjectivity. Prior to Malkhut,
there is a straightforward, monistic unity that is impossible to speak of from
outside; after Malkhut, there is "ani," me, the perceiver, and you
(ata) the object of perception. Therefore, the kabbalists say that
Malkhut is "ani," but from the perspective of the ani, God
(Tiferet) is "Ata." Malkhut generates differentiation, an
awareness of duality. Malkhut is also called "this" (zot) because
the forms of perception of Malkhut are the categories of space and time,
the categories through which concrete existence "this" is perceived!
Malkhut is also "the moon" because the tzimtzum within it enables
the perception of existence that cannot be grasped without it, just as the moon
allows us to contemplate the sunlight that cannot itself be
perceived.
I wish to conclude
this shiur with an important passage from Part II of Orot
Ha-Kodesh, a segment in which Rav Kook most clearly articulates the
theological alternatives and the web of relations between them. So as to avoid
repetition, we will present the section as is and explain it in the notes. There
are several new insights here beyond what we have already learned, and I hope
that they will be understood by learning the passage itself and through the
clarifications in the notes.
Explanation |
Orot
Ha-Kodesh Vol. II,
p.399 |
- The excerpt
deals with theology - Monotheistic
theology (or simply "theism") sees God as an independent, transcendent,
other-worldly entity: the world is limited, material, and finite, whereas
God is the opposite. During the medieval era, this was the most common
opinion among theologians, and this is also the most common religious
image (God in heaven). - Weakness and
fatigue are the result of the ontological alienation between man and God:
God is perfect, and I am lacking; as much as I try to emulate God, I will
remain just as far from Him. This fatigue can also be expressed as
jealousy, as Nietzsche articulated it: "I want to be
God!" - Descriptions
of God as righteous, upright, good, pious, etc. are intended to describe
Him according to the greatest possible perfection of these attributes. Our
attempt to cleave to these virtues is predestined for failure because we
are limited, finite, material, etc. - In theistic
theology, a person can find some satisfaction and comfort if he succeeds
in living a highly moral life but the distance between him and God
remains infinite. - "The failed
smallness to Divine greatness" = man's smallness and nothingness compared
to God. - Pantheism =
Divinity is within the world; world and God are not two distinct entities.
Pantheism per se was formulated by Spinoza. Rav Kook cautions that
pantheistic thought requires refinement. He also gives a source for a
doctrine so refined: Chabad, the rational Chassidut (even though it
seems that Chabad philosophy also does not exhaust the idea).
Nevertheless, this alternative is recognizing the world, including man, as
an expression of Divinity and not as a separate
reality. - Pantheism
demands that a person forego his subjectivity, his recognition of self as
having separate, independent existence. Monotheistic theology creates a
sense of cessation and nothingness in relation to Divine perfection, but
at least leaves the person his "I." Pantheism demands the foregoing of the
"I" as well: the recognition that even my subjective reality is part of
God's overall unity. - "The second
outlook" is the pantheistic outlook, in which there is nothing other than
God. Pantheism considers egoism (as an ideology) and egocentrism (as a
consciousness) as ontologically baseless, and consequently morally
baseless, outlooks. From an egocentric perspective, relinquishing the ego
means relinquishing everything, and therefore pantheism's demand for the
nullification of the "I" seems to be a demand for suicide, which may be
ontologically justified but certainly does not bring
happiness. - The reality
of man's existence lies in being part of the total Divine unity in being
an expression of this unity. Rav Kook opposed mystical union (the
mysticism of the unity, a religious experience whose basis is the absolute
nullification of self to the Divine). In mystical union, man's singular
personal aspect is lost in the totality of Divine perfection, to which man
nullifies his thoughts and will. Indeed, subjectivity is an expression of
the Divine, but it does not require the nullification of its singularity,
only the relinquishment of a position that sees the subject as an
independent existence and leads him toward placing himself at the center
(egocentric consciousness). - This is a
change in consciousness: not simply adopting an ideology but foregoing the
built-in pattern for perceiving reality (in Kantian terms, foregoing the
given forms of reason). - "imagination"
= an image of reality as it is given by human
reason. - Release from
the built-in images of reality is the acquisition of the greatest freedom
- man's freedom to perceive reality and himself as they truly are,
unmediated. - If thus far
it seemed that these are two contradictory theological alternatives, it is
now clarified that classic theism is the basis for the second approach,
the approach of "there is nothing but Him." Otherwise, the world would be
perceived as is the object as God (as Spinoza saw it) - and there would
be no understanding that the revealed reality is the last phase of Divine
manifestation and that Divinity is the soul and root of the
world. - The images
"receptacle" and "temple" are synonyms for the sefira of
Malkhut. Here, a kabbalistic foundation is revealed: Theism the
perception of duality, of man and God, "I" and "You" stems from
Malkhut, which is, as explained above, the source of human
consciousness and the differentiation of the perceiving subject and the
perceived object. "I accept the yoke of the kingdom (Malkhut) of
Heaven upon me:" there is an "I" and there is a "Heaven" and there is a
relationship between them; this is the consciousness of
Malkhut. We need theism
so that thoughts of total unity do not become a type of nature-paganism
or, on the other hand, complete atheism. Theism allows us to see Divinity
as "the place of the world" and to still maintain the transcendent aspect
("the world is not his place"). -
The unmediated sense of the world of the deeply religious and logical
deduction (such as for the Alter Rebbe) both lead to a pantheistic
conclusion. This is true on both the internal-experiential plane and from
the perspective of inspiration and creation: consciousness of unity fills
a person up and influences him toward feelings of elevation, love for
everything, and acceptance of everything. In contrast, the practical world
(choice, responsibility, purposefulness) requires precisely the
consciousness of a separate, deliberate, contemplative "I" that decides on
its own. Malkhut
is the sefira
of action. Even though its light is limited (an incomplete expression of
the Divine), this restriction of Malkhut
is necessary for man, just as it is a necessary component of Divine
emanation. -
"Temple thinking" the Temple, the form of perception, the structure of
awareness corresponds to Malkhut.
But Malkhut
"has nothing of its own" it does not represent the real world. Its basis
is not ontological but epistemological (belonging to
consciousness). -
According to this, Malkhut
necessarily stems from the places above it from the Name of Havaya
and this flow creates a different, dialectic consciousness: the
practical world is guided by the consciousness of the existence of self,
man's freedom, responsibility, and, from a theological perspective, by
theism. "The philosophical world" is the pantheistic world, the product of
thought that itself emerged from the total Divine
Being. -
Like the Alter Rebbe, but with a different interpretation which depends
primarily on the form of consciousness and not on reality we arrive at
the end of the section at the unification of the two forms of
consciousness: pantheistic consciousness, represented by the Name of
Havaya,
and theistic consciousness, represented by Malkhut.
This is the "Yichuda
Tata'a"
the lower unity, between the Ze'eir Anpin
(Tiferet-Havaya-YKVK;
pantheism, over-arching unity, absolute Divine Being) and the Nukva
(feminine-Shekhina-Malkhut;
theism, the subject). |
The
Total Divine Outlook
It is natural
that the common perception, the understanding of God that stems from the
monotheistic idea, which is also the best-known outlook from the
perspective of faith, sometimes causes sadness and weakness of spirit, as
a result of the weakness that enters man's spirit when he imagines that
he, as a weak and limited being, is so distant from the Divine perfection,
which illuminates with the light of the splendor of its
power. Weakness is
especially aroused by emphasizing that moral shortcomings become prominent
within the spirit by limiting the stature of man vis-א-vis Divine
perfection with regard to justice and morality. Indeed, this weakness can
be minimized to the degree that one is strong in his moral, practical, and
virtuous state. Yet the weakness cannot be completely removed, due to the
ongoing comparison of failed smallness to Divine greatness, which
infinitely frustrates even the broadest idea. Less wearisome
to man than this perception is the monotheistic philosophy that tends
toward pantheistic interpretation when it is refined from its dross. This
stands out in the rational dimension of the new Chassidut which
asserts that there is nothing outside of God. Man finds
himself so that if only he does not occupy an independent place inside
himself, then when in his imagination he is torn from the infinite Divine
perfection, he will certainly be weak and failed and is nothing. He is
even more "nothing" than the "nothing" of the insignificant value assigned
in the first image; for there he was indeed considered to have some
independent existence within his own boundary, the domain of his will, and
his consciousness, emotions, and tendencies only that his world is
infinitesimal to the point of weakness and nullity compared to the
infinite Divine greatness. Nevertheless, it is not an absolute and
fundamental nothingness. This is not the case with the second outlook,
which explains that there is nothing outside of absolute Divinity.
Therefore, settling on the individual tendencies of a person, which rests
on a worldview that there is some individual and independent reality, even
if it is very small, is nonsense and mistaken. This worldview ought to
have weakened the spirit man at the depths of its contemplations even more
than the first. Yet this is not the case. Rather, this latter restores the
power of man's eternity, and encourages him not to forget the truth of his
existence, and that he should distance himself from lifestyles that are
rooted in the mistaken idea of his own personal existence, spiritually
torn away from the Divine infinite. But once he treads this path, he no
longer needs to conquer reality, only false imaginings, since he has
already been authenticated by the Infinite. But in truth
this task is not as easy as the imagination makes it seem. Going free from
the prison of the imagination is no less difficult than escaping from some
physical prison. Nevertheless, the ultimate boldness of spirit he accrues
is more than the first thinking. But it is
impossible to reach this without much practice and the most refined mental
exercise possible based on the first outlook, and then it garbs itself and
all its detail in the light of the latter outlook and becomes a receptacle
and temple for it. "God is in His holy Temple". But even though
the theoretical and poetic-emotional world becomes more refined and
sublime through the second thinking, which is filled with the light of
humility and nullification of being, the practical world cannot continue
on its path while constantly taking this higher vision, and so a person
must of necessity minimize his light in order to adapt to the practical
world and connect with the first, "temple" thinking. But he must still
know full well that this thinking is not clear in and of itself, and it
has nothing of its own. Rather, it is ideologically and graphically bound
up with the higher thought processes of the second mode of vision that we
discussed. Then the real world becomes accelerated and blanched and full
of justice, and the world of thought becomes ever more reinforced from the
blessings of its Source, and they constantly unite through unified
observation, and the center of existence is united in perfect
unity. |
Summary
Through
Rav Kook's words in the letter, we have attempted to understand the foundations
of his epistemology and theology. We were also able to understand why we do not
need Kant, except perhaps for his language and concepts. Moreover, we have
understood why Kant's wisdom, although it touches on the truth, does not get to
the root of the matter, which can be drawn specifically from Jewish
sources.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!