Recently there have been some accusations and misunderstanding regarding statements of one or more of the Chabad Rebbe’s found in their discourses on hasidic philosophy.
In my opinion these fractious arguments could have been avoided if only people were a bit more familiar with the philosophy and language of Chassidut and specifically the philosophy of Chabad Chassidut.
In the interests of fostering greater Ahavat Yisroel between our fellow Jews I wish to give a few lessons here in Chabad hasidic philosophy and offer the opportunity for anyone to ask questions on its beliefs.
May this be a great step towards the sort of unity between the Jewish people that will bring about the coming of Moshiach immediately.
----
Lesson 1
THE GREAT "CONTRACTION"-LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE?
We begin with a dispute which took place between the Vilna Gaon and the Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Schneir Zalman of Liadi over some statements by the Arizal.
(I’m not translating everything here, if anyone wants a translation of a word or name just holler).
The Arizal basing himself on the Holy Zohar and the account of creation in the Torah, speaks about how G-d created the world.
He speaks several times about how G-d made a “tzimtzum” (literally contraction) within Himself leaving an “empty space”which he used to create the world.
The dispute revolved around the nature of this tzimtzum. Was it literal or figurative?
Did G-d literally contract Himself, leave a place where He no longer was, and create the world there?
The Vilna Gaon said “yes” this was literal. The implication is that where there is the physical world, G-d is absent.
The Alter Rebbe disagreed. He cites various Pesukim to the effect that “Ein Od Milvad” really there is no true existence but G-d. He maintained that in Judaism it would be impossible to say that G-d created a place where He does not exist, that G-d is everywhere and even if he could create a place where He doesn’t exist, that place too would be His creation, and dependent on Him for existence and then again, it’s really only G-d’s existence.
This is similar to what the Rambam says about G-d’s relationship with the world in Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah. The Rambam does not say that G-d separated Himself from the world, he says “Kol Haemtzim MeAmitis Himatzo”…all existence derives from the truth of His existence i.e. despite what our eyes might tell us…G-d is the only true existence. Everything that exists, is somehow just an expression of that true existence of G-d. (As a side note, it is interesting to ponder the correlations between this statement of the Rambam and the Grand Unified Theory of Everything that physicists and scientist are searching for. It would appear that even science would agree that all matter can be boiled down to 4 basic substances (I believe matter, energy, electromagnetism...and I forgot the other one) and that all four must have some unified existence from which they all derive and are mere expressions of in the same way that each example of matter is a mere expression of the unified existence of the abstraction knowns as "matter"), though they do not yet know what that unified existence is. The Rambam we may surmise would probably say that the unified truth behind everything that they are looking for is G-d, and hasidic philsophy would certainly agree with this).
For these reasons the Alter Rebbe maintains that the Arizal’s use of the word “tzimtzum” is figurative not literal. G-d created a figurative “space” where He appears not to be but this is just a result of the figurative “contraction” which He made that leaves that impression.
THE INHERENT CONTRADICTION
This of course presents a problem.
We are all realists here. We know that the world that we see is real. Even the Torah tells us that G-d created the world in the first verse and G-d forbid to say this is some sort of lie or illusion.
However we also know that the only according to hasidic philosophy that the only true existence is G-d. And G-d has no body, no form, no limits, He is infinite and perfect.
So how can we reconcile the existence of a material, limited, finite world, with the fact that the only true existence is an infinte, limitless G-d?
How could these two things be true at the same time?
This is basically the question that hasidic philosphohy sets out to explain. It is a deep subject that nobody should hope to begin to understand on the first try.
However, through the hasidic discrouses of the Chabad hasidic Rebbe’s this concept has been brought down closer and closer to our understanding (note: the reason Chabad is called Chabad is because its goal is to understand these deep concepts in with our wisdom knowledge and understanding and not ONLY in just a way of faith).
To try to explain this concept many many analogies are given to make sense of the fact that that the G-dly and infinite and the limited and finite can coexist and do not really contradict.
Some people may wonder how G-d could transcend contradiction…but remember that was the point of the Aron HaKodesh. It taught us that when it comes to G-d, limited and unlimited are just two sides of the same coin. He could transcend these opposites and that’s why the Aron on one hand took up space and on the other hand did not. Both were 100% true, difficult though that may be to understand. But with G-d’s help we will begin to understand this.
ANALOGIES TO HELP US UNDERSTAND
So a few analogies are offered to help us understand.
We will deal with two of them now: the anology of the relationship between the soul and the body, and the analogy of a dream and the dreamer.
Soul and Body
There's this guy named Reuven. Then someone named Shimon comes and punches Reuven in the arm.
Reuven says: "Hey, why did you punch me?"
Shimon says: "I didn't punch you, buddy. I punched your arm. Your arm is not you. Even without your arm you would still be Bob. The real Bob is not even your body. The real Bob is way beyond all of these things.
I could never even hurt the real Bob if I tried."
Reuven still is angry at Shimon for punching him.
Who is right?
On one hand Reuven is not his arm. Reuven is just Reuven. But Bob also expresses himself through his arm. He's connected himself to his arm to such an extent that when you punch it...the whole Reuven get's upset. The real Reuven get's angry. And the real Reuven according to the Torah is entitled to recompense.
So while on one hand Reuven is way beyond just his arm...he has also connected his true self to that arm. And if you wrong Reuven's arm...according to Jewish law...you've wronged Reuven.
You need several more analogies to understand how this applies with G-d and the world but this at least get's us started.
If you are just praying to the rocks and the trees without recognizing the G-d that created and is behind all of these thing...then this is like me talking to your arm and asking it to do me a favor. That's an insult to you...it's a denail of your true self and your free choice.
In the case of G-d it's idolatry.
That's not what we're supposed to do.
But if we look at the trees, rocks etc. and find the G-d behind it all...creating it all..and controlling it all with His complete free choice...and then we trace back that realization to our original view to ultimately find that those rocks, trees etc. are not just rocks and trees...they are G-d expressing His true self through all of these things.
Then you start to see how the rocks and trees are connected with G-d essence in a similar way to how Reuven's arm is connected with the real Reuven even though we all know that Reuven's arm is not Bob.
The Dream and the Dreamer
Another way to think about all of this is a dream.
In a dream we create a whole world, a whole reality, with rocks and plants and animals and people. And there is even a "you" person in the dream. But there are also many "others" in the dream. Some of them may even be your enemies and may chase you.
Yet, it is really all you.
And, yet, you give away your control, as if you don't control the "others", even though they really only exist from you.
If anyone has any question on any of this please ask away!
Topic: Lessons In Chabad Hasidic Philosophy (in light of recent misunderstandings) (Read 11106 times)