Many ideas and theories have been given as to the purpose
and value of the physical realm. While in last week’s post we examined
some of the ideas given by Chassidic thought, this week we will explore the
Mussar and Kabbalistic approaches to this subject. Next week we will examine
the Medieval Rishonim’s perspectives as well as the Islamic and Christian
conceptions.
MUSSAR
We will start with the doctrine of Mussar which is, to a certain
extent, the Litvish philosophical and psychological school of thought. Mussar
takes a position which is very different than Chassidus. In Mussaristic thought
the world is here primarily as an arena and platform for man to overcome
temptation and evil in order to receive spiritual rewards.
[It is interesting to note that Mussar appears
to have no global imagination or agenda. It seems to be very focused on the
inner evil of man and less concerned with the world without. This is in sharp
contrast to Chassidus which, while placing enormous importance on the inner
machinations of the individual, is also extremely focused on the global picture
and ushering in the universal utopia of Moshiach.
As well, the psychological difference in perspective between
Chassidus and Mussar is so great as to render them entirely different doctrines
with almost no overlap. While this is an oversimplification, there is much to
be said on this. Definitely the topic of a future blog post.]
Thus do we find in Mussar that the world is considered to be
simply a preparatory stage before advancing to the real goal which is gan
eden or “spiritual bliss”. Why does G-d want to give man spiritual
bliss? Because it is in His nature to do good to his creations. Teva hatov
le’heitiv. I will call this the “G-d
is good doctrine”.
Why then not just create souls and place them in gan eden
in the first place? Why go through this whole charade of creating an earthly
realm with its physical temptations to test man and only if he is deemed
meritorious then place him in spiritual bliss? To this Mussar answers that if
man was simply given spiritual pleasure and bliss he would not enjoy it fully.
Because one doesn’t appreciate something freely given as much as they do
something earned by the sweat of their brow. In other words, not just is the
world an interface for man to earn a place in gan eden, even the very
reason why the world was created instead of gan eden in the first place,
is also there just to enhance the pleasure and bliss of the soul in gan eden
.
There is much to admire in this weltanschauung. While the
self-oriented underpinnings of this approach might come across as primitive or
simplistic, in truth the value that Mussar places on Man is not to be underestimated
and is a powerful endorsement of the importance of man within the global scheme
of things.
KABBALAH
Kabbalah takes the very same “G-d is good doctrine” but ends
up in a vastly different conceptual place. “G-d’s nature is to do good” is not seen as a
psychological idea as much as it is an existential idea. In other words, G-d
wants to do good because it fulfills a need to express the full potential of
his capabilities. This is a Kabbalistic statement about the inner workings of
the divine. Namely, that in the spiritual realms any possibility has to be
actualized and given form of expression. Contrast this with our physical
reality where the gap between one’s potential and their actual is often never
bridged.
[Why this is so, involves a lengthy and abstract discussion
on the inner workings of spiritual potentiality.]
Therefore since G-d can do good- he must do
good. Thus the good G-d does, by creating our world and giving us existence, is
not driven by the same motivation that humans can relate to. In the Mussar
school, G-d does good much like a human would do good. Because they want to be
good. But in the Kabbalistic school of thought G-d shares no such commonality
of motivation with an earthly being. Rather the good he does is driven by a
unique and distinct element of his spiritual nature. That potentiality must be
given expression.
Ultimately both schools have to reckon with the question of
“how can we assert any nature to G-d”? There are many theological and
philosophical problems that arise from stating that G-d has a nature and that
that nature is good. Indeed Chassidus rejects this doctrine precisely for this
reason. G-d being an absolute and omnipotent entity cannot be limited and
defined to a specific nature or indeed any nature at all. At his most core
level, G-d simply is. We cannot say more than that. To do so would be to define
him and to define his essence is to limit his essence. That’s not to say that there is no value to the “G-d is good
doctrine”. Indeed Chassidus readily admits to its existence in lower spiritual
dimensions of reality.But to assert that G-d at his core is driven by this, is
incorrect.
An expression of this idea is the following Chassidic interpretation: in the nusach
(liturgy), we say “hamechadesh be’tuvo be’chol yom tamid”. The plain
meaning is that “G-d, in his goodness, renews creation every single day”.
Chassidus interprets it as “G-d renews his nature of goodness every day in
order to bring about the renewal of creation”.
Thus Chassidic thought gravitates away from the “G-d is
good doctrine” whether it is the ontological twist that Kabbalah takes or the
human-oriented approach of Mussar.
In the next post we will briefly look at the medieval Rishonim’s
perspectives as well as the Islamic and Christian approaches to this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment