The Unity of Opposites Letter 44 Sections F-H (continued)
RAV KOOKS
LETTERS
By Rav Tamir
Granot
Lecture #13b:
Letter 44
Sections F-H: The Unity of Opposites (continued)
Unity of
opposites in Kabbala and Chasidut
We
now turn to studying Rav Kooks sources, and first to his Kabbalistic-Chasidic
sources. As stated, the Kabbalistic
doctrine of emanations (atzilut) contains the nucleus of the doctrine of
unity of opposites, as it describes the Divine emanation as a process of
splitting something off of its opposite and its continued existence alongside it
within a network of opposing, antithetical elements. This is how the first act of emanation
is explained the splitting off of Chokhma (an anagram of koach
ma the power of substance) from Ayin (Keter) as a creation
ex nihilo, of something from nothing, by means of emanation, in a manner
that the substance and Ayin are interconnected. Thus, the various manners of emanation
continue their existence as pairs of opposites: love and judgment, male and
female, etc.
It
should be emphasized that this all regards the unity of opposing elements that
are expressions of the Divine oneness, that is, of a single subject. Lurianic Kabbalistic concepts are also
antithetical: constriction and expansion, direct light and reflected light,
filling (immanence) and surrounding (transcendence), etc. The Kabbalists were not afraid of
representing Divinity in this manner, despite its logical difficulty. However, the theories of the early
Kabbalists do not always contain the philosophical reflections of descriptions
and narratives. To this end, we
will look at the words of the first Rebbes of Chabad, who were principled
masters of Chasidut and Kabbala:
For
You have done wondrous things in that His power as the Infinite is to attract
them [existents], bind them, and equalize them in their essence
For everything
is His power alone, expressed in them in every specific detail, and these are
two opposites in one subject
This is far beyond the intellect
how all
existents are levels of His power, since He is negated from all of these levels;
therefore, Keter is associated with the wondrous
(pele)
The
meaning is that the aspect of Keter is the intermediary between the
Emanator (Maatzil) and the emanated, and it is known that every
intermediary must contain the two opposites that it connects
(Torah Or,
Yitro, p.
217)
The
following appears in Shaarei Ha-Yichud Ve-Ha-Emuna by R. Aharon Halevi
Horowitz of Strashelye, the greatest disciple of the Alter
Rebbe:
The
entire principle intent is that His equalizing be revealed [i.e.: the concept
that describes the Divine unity despite oppositions] in true actuality, that is,
that all reality and levels be revealed
with the expression of every detail on
its own, and yet they will unite and be connected in their worth, namely that
they are expressed as distinct essences and yet are united. (Shaarei Ha-Yichud Ve-Ha-Emuna,
gate 4, chapter 5)
In
these two selections, we have a concise expression of the Chabad doctrine of the
unity of opposites, which is essentially its theory of creation. The Divinity preceding creation was
simple unity, containing no division between various essences and in which no
oppositions can be discerned. But,
as Chabad teaches, it is not a complete unity. The unity is fully expressed only once
opposites, contradictory elements, appear, and it is subsequently clarified that
they are really unified and that the contradiction was merely apparent. In other words, Divine unity is, on one
level, only in potential until all of reality appears with all of its
contradiction; the power of Divine unity (the element of AyinKeter
according to the Alter Rebbe) is in that it binds and connects all
opposites. This paradox is the
essence of the relationship between our revealed world, which is a world of
contradictions, and the world from His perspective, which is entirely
unified. Prior to the appearance of
opposites, this unity had no real meaning, and therefore specifically the Divine
constriction (tzimtzum), which enables the appearance of distinct and
particular elements, is paradoxically also what allows for the expression of
full ultimate unity.
We
saw a similar paradox in the previous lecture regarding the element of
Malkhut: the king must constrict himself so that he may have a
people[1]
and thereby fully express his dominion.
Thus, the interior of Malkhut expresses the principle of unity,
and this is the aspect of Yesod, which precedes Malkhut, which
unifies all of the Divine profusion.
But the exterior of Malkhut is the source of division, because it
gives space to significant existence outside of the Divine. Thus, since Malkhut is the source
of the formation of the I, the subject, as we learned, and the vision of a
world full of contradiction and opposition that our consciousness portrays are
connected to each other.
To
complete this idea, we cite the Arizal, as brought by R. Chaim Vital, regarding
the purpose of creation of the worlds:
Regarding
the ultimate intent of the creation of the world, we will now explain two
inquiries that engaged the kabbalists.
The first inquiry is the investigation of early and later sages into the
reason for the creation of the world: for what reason did it come into being?
They debated and decided and declared.
I say that the reason is that God must be perfect in all His actions and
powers and in all His Names of greatness and excellence and honor, and if He
would not have brought His actions and powers into fruition, He would not be
called perfect, as it were not in His actions nor in His Names and
attributes. For the great Name, the
Tetragrammaton, Havaya, is called such as a derivation of His eternal
existence and everlasting being, past, present, and future, prior to creation,
during creation, and after its return to what was. And if the worlds and all that fill them
had not been created, the truth of the derivation of His eternal existence in
the past, present, and future could not be seen, and He would not be called by
the Name of Havaya, as stated.
Similarly, the name of Adnut is called such as a derivation from
His lordship, that He has slaves and He is their Master, and if He had no
creatures He could not be called by the name Master, and so forth for all of
the Names. The same applies to
monikers such as merciful, clement, and slow to anger He would not be
called by them unless there were creatures in the world who call Him slow to
anger, and so too for all other monikers.
But since the worlds have been created, His actions and powers have come
to fruition and He is called perfect in all of His different actions and powers,
and He is also perfect in all of the Names and monikers, with no lacking
whatsoever. (Etz Chaim, Gate
1, Branch 1, Homily on the Straight and the Round)
If
not for creation, Gods existence would not be perfect, since it would not have
been able to relate to the three expanses of time (past, present, and future);
if not for creation, His lordship would not be perfect, and the same goes for
all of His Names. The perfection of
Keter (which includes the opposites of substance and nothing, yesh
and ayin the archetype of all opposition) depends on the expression of
the opposites in the world through Malkhut. This is also the connection between the
highest sefira, Keter, which is a symbol of monarchy (the crown),
and the lowest sefira, Malkhut, which actualizes the principle
revealed through Keter.
These
are the Kabbalistic sources on this issue.
As noted, the main context of these sources is theological, but already
at this point we can discern the profound connection between Rav Kooks writings
and the discussions within Chabad and Kabbala in
general.
Unity of
Opposites in Philosophy
We
now turn to Rav Kooks philosophical sources. This is how Schelling, an early
nineteenth century German philosopher, understood the structure of
nature:
it was the conception of duality, of the opposition of forces which negate each
other in a higher unity, that formed the fundamental schema of his construction
of nature a conception due to the science of knowledge and from this point
of view the polarity in electric and magnetic phenomena which busied Schellings
contemporaries as a newly found enigma was particularly significant for
him. (Windelband, A History of
Philosophy, Part IV, pp. 599-600)
This
is apparently the source for what Rav Kook wrote in Letter 44 about the
oppositions that can be found in nature, which not only do not defy logic, they
are the foundation of dynamism and change in nature. A monochromatic world is not
productive. Profusion is also a
result of the encounter between opposites, between male and female. Rav Kook takes this idea to the world of
the spirit and determines that the encounter of opposing spiritual sources is
also a source for spiritual fertility:
What
a halakhist feels when entering the realm of aggada, and vice versa, is
that he is entering another world, taking the largest part of the spiritual
fertility that comes from the restful soul, based on the inner
unity.
We
are called upon to blaze such trails in the ways of learning, through which
Halakha and Aggada can be fundamentally connected. The idea of bringing distant worlds
close is the foundation of the building and completing of our spiritual world, a
basic power that runs like a scarlet thread through all expressions of life, in
all of its corners, and it must always be revealed more broadly. (Orot Ha-Kodesh I,
p.25)
Halakha
and Aggada are opposites: Aggada deals with the principles of thought and
Halakha with the details; Aggada is rooted in the imagination, and Halakha in
the intellect; Aggada is synthetic and Halakha analytic; Aggada continues
prophecy and Halakha continues the Torah; etc. Halakha and Aggada became two separate
disciplines, and their rupture prevents spiritual creativity and fertility. Only study and creativity nurtured by
the tension between these two poles can build new spiritual worlds. This is the detail that left in order
to instruct the principle (perat she-yatza le-lamed al ha-kelal).
Returning
to Schelling, he saw the magnet as the archetype of all nature: just as the
magnet functions as a result of the tension between its positive and negative
poles, so too all of nature is only the result of the dynamics of opposing
forces:
What
appears in nature as essence, what is called matter or atom, is only the effect
of forces
the essence of nature is volition and force, and physical substance
is formed only as its result. This
is the only way to understand
the unity of the life of nature. This unity does not exist if we presume
that only objects exist autonomously, which enter relationships and combinations
on the basis of laws. But this
[unity] is fully understood if these objects are merely the results of volitions
and forces, all of which constitute images that descend from a single primal
volition that splits into opposites in order to live and in order to achieve its
goals. (Windelband, Modern
Philosophy, vol. III, p. 244 [My translation from the Hebrew translation -
EF])
Here,
we obtain a very interesting perspective on the essence of being. Schelling claimed that the static
existence of objects, separate and fixed existence, is only the ramification of
dynamic, vital forces that themselves are the refraction of the worlds vital
sustaining force. Half a generation
after Schelling, this ontology was developed by the philosopher Arthur
Schopenhauer, who spoke of the essence of the world as will and of apparent
reality as of the imaginings of this will.
In terms of Kants doctrine, Schelling means that the real world is the
world of forces and energy, and the phenomenal world is the world of static
objects. What emerges from here is
that the existence of opposites not only does not present an ontological
problem, it is the gateway to understanding the true structure of the world,
which is not grasped sensually but understood through contemplation, when what
appear as opposites that are to negate each other turn out to be the foundation
of life in the world.
It
is easy to see that many of the ontological principles of Rav Kooks doctrine
are contained here. Specifically,
the unified existence of opposites is the secret of the worlds vitality, the
world spirit (Rav Kooks nishmat ha-olam corresponding to the
weltgeist of Schellings followers), and it indicates its Divine
interiority. The doctrine of the
unification of opposites is itself the source for grasping this world as a
Divine world, since it teaches that the world of division that we grasp is only
the atomized exterior of a living, dynamic reality, of which opposites are
organic limbs.
The
concept of Divinity is, then, the existence of all opposites in a pre-distinct
and pre-separate state, whereas the world is their appearance as divided to
human eyes:
The
magnet is not only the archetype of natural philosophy, but it is also the
general metaphysical archetype.
Like the magnet
so too the Absolute [Divinity] is undivided unification
of all opposition. (Ibid.,
p. 279)
Proximity
to the Chabad version is clearly discernible here, and we can attempt to
reconstruct how Rav Kook built his edifice atop these two foundations, despite
their differences. The Chabad
perspective wishes to understand the Divine perfection; the philosophical
perspective contemplates the existence of the world and the relationship between
the phenomenon and its source. Rav
Kook understood that these two perspectives actually describe a similar picture,
whose linchpin is the idea of the unity of opposites an idea that is both
theological and ontological.
The
implication of this understanding of the world of ideas is of the utmost
importance. According to this
model, the contradictory ideas that appear in the world parallel the phenomenal
world: they are a polar reflection of the living inner essence, whose entrapment
in the form of fixed ideologies generates opposition. Individualism and collectivism as two
moral doctrines can be a good illustration of this. According to one view, the individual is
the end; according to the other, it is the collective. These are two opposing stances. According to Rav Kook, we should view
them as poles motivated by the vibrant human desire for the improvement and
quality of human life, and the tension between acting on behalf of the
collective and acting on behalf of the individual is the motivating force of
human action in general. Human
personality, Rav Kook claims, is always constructed from an individual
foundation and a national-social foundation. Every ideology is an amputation of one
real side of this vector of forces, an amputation that internalizes one
essential but incomplete foundation of the human psyche and formulates it as an
ideology. This is the meaning of
the metaphor of the different horizons of those observing the
sea:
Both
parties consist of upright people who truly love their people who do not turn
their backs on the past, just as there are even people like this amongst the
opponents who wish to completely uproot the Zionist movement. It is a bad
sign for a party if it thinks that it alone is the source of life, of all wisdom
and all integrity, and everything other than it is vain and evil-spirited. (Letters
I:18, p. 17)
In
other words, the problem is rooted in the fact that the various opinion-holders
and movement leaders do not understand that they represent only one pole
indeed true, but only partial of the truth, and that specifically through the
existence of the negating and opposing position can a dynamic of development and
life be created. Just as we are
only fully aware of the sea (in Rav Kooks parable) when we combine the given
data from the observations of various horizons into a complete picture, so too
we can obtain a full understanding of man, on the essence of society, of the
world, or of anything else only if we find the way to the unifying method that
will contain all of the partial and contradictory truths by locating each
position within the perspective that is worthy of it.
Summary
As
we have seen, this is a deep and multifaceted topic. In order to attempt to arrange and
perhaps even simplify a bit, I will try to summarize by claiming that there are
three main models for understanding the principle of the unity of
opposites:
A. The perspectives
model
According to this model, opposites are not really opposites; they only appear
as such because we scrutinize the same concept from different perspectives. This is the parable of those standing at
the seashore that appears in Letter 44.
Since every observer is unaware of the possibility of looking from a
different angle, he mistakenly imagines that his grasp of the concept is
complete. The understanding that
opposites stem not from the essence of the concept but from its adumbrated
understanding allows every observer to acquire other perspectives as well, and
thus to see the concept through a broader view. (Another source for this is Rav Kooks
homily, appearing in Olat Reaya, on the Talmudic statement Talmidei
chakhamim increase peace in the world.)
B. The garb model
According to this model, contradiction is not in the concept itself, but in
the different ways that it is clothed.
According to this model, attention should be paid to the fact that
ideological, moral, or metaphysical positions are always the garb of a deeper
inner content, the soul of the idea, for which the need to translate into words
and definitions, to clarify or formulate as a practical program, causes it to
appear through its garb. This model
explains why contradictions are even possible within a single observer who has
but one perspective - since he grasps the idea through its various contradictory
clothings.
C. The essential (or metaphysical) paradox
model
Here, we are no longer dealing with the way in which the concept or idea is
grasped or appears, but with the concepts themselves. The claim is that specifically because
of its perfection, the Divine must contain contradictions. In our world, oppositions can appear
within different objects. The
Divinity, which includes all, must include these essential oppositions as
well. Later (when we study Letter
91), we will see that even the concept of perfection is lacking and does not
include its opposite: the imperfect being that strives for
perfection.
Implications
I
wish to clarify one final point: does the doctrine of the unity of opposites
have any operative meaning, whether in practice or on the level of spiritual
action? And if it does, what is it?
On
this point, there is a broad variance between the different Kabbalistic and
Chasidic ideologies as well as among the different philosophical
schools.
One
possible conclusion of the doctrine of the unity of differences is the desire to
exist on the existential plane on which all opposites are nullified. But the implementation of this desire
takes many varied forms.
In
Chabad, it takes (not as its only task, but certainly as a central part of
worshipping God) the religious form of the principle of bittul ha-yesh
(nullification of self) - complete cancellation of the individual will and
individual consciousness in favor of the Divine. This bittul, an inner
psychological act preceded by spiritual contemplation and moral effort
(humility, awe, etc.), leads a person to the experience of clinging to God, in
which he succeeds in grasping the Divine essence the singular with no
divisions of reality, of true there is none but Him in its ontological
sense.
For
Hegel, the main task is philosophical reason. The possibility of reaching unity is
implicit in finding the rational regularity through which all specific processes
and ideas in existence can be grasped at once. The dialectical principle of
theses,
antithesis, and synthesis
the advancement to a higher stage that contains the two opposing elements
that continues indefinitely is the methodological principle with which we
approach the task of best using reason, i.e., the unification project. Note that in Hegels method, one of the
opposites is progressive and process-oriented; reason continues to develop
toward its perfection. At any given
stage, there are oppositions and there is no unity, but the law of dialectics
promises that unity will ultimately be revealed through
progress.
Schelling,
as we described, saw opposition as part of the essence of being; it constitutes
the dynamic force, the live force of existence. Consequently, it does not need to be
nullified, and unity derives from the understanding of opposites as expressions
of the basic unity of the Absolute (the Weltgeist or Divinity), which
expresses its unity through the opposites that exist at different levels of
balance, which are themselves the bricks from which reality is
constructed.
What
about Rav Kook? There is no doubt that, like Chabad, he is also seeking unity
through the nullification of individual, divisive consciousness, which is
imagination or blindness, as we saw in the previous lecture. But the acosmist approach (the
nullification of reality, seeing it as an insignificant illusion) is
unacceptable to him. The unity of
opposites is a methodological and metaphysical principle that can transform the
reality of here and now the reality of Malkhut (the world of phenomena)
into a harmonious, perfected existence by including all ideal and real
opposites into a higher and more perfect practical and ideal framework, which
becomes more and more possible as the process of redemption progresses and as
Divinity gains ever more expression through the garb of
reality.
Rav
Kook uses expressions that recall the Hegelian position of finding syntheses
that stem from the opposites alongside constant dialectic progress. Other expressions of Rav Kook are
similar to Schellings position, which upholds the opposites in proper balance
as the vital force of being and has the goal of striving to find and uphold this
proper balance between opposites and poles within practical and spiritual
life. As I noted at the beginning
of the lecture, Rav Kooks teachings themselves contain many oppositions:
between the individual and the collective, between the sacred and the secular,
between isolation and sociality, between prophecy and Halakha, etc. From this perspective, the existence of
these oppositions does not constitute an internal contradiction within Rav
Kooks thought, but an expression of the fact that perfect unity will be
attained specifically through the harmonious coexistence of opposites, not by
the nullification of one of them.
We
conclude this discussion even though we have not exhausted it because we have
not yet dealt with Rav Kooks philosophy of history and what emerges from it
regarding world development. These
topics are essential background on this matter. We will discuss this later, in Letters
89-91.
Note
One
who reads this lecture may be impressed by the great similarity between
philosophical sources, Kabbalistic sources, and the writings of Rav Kook. As we saw in previous lectures, Rav Kook
himself emphasizes the exclusivity of Jewish thought. We may thus ask - are these ideas really
so similar?
I
wish to answer this with two opposing but complementary
answers:
1. For the purposes of the lecture, we
indeed emphasized the points of similarity, but it must be recalled that this is
only a partial picture. Thus, for
example, as the consistent conclusion of his method, Hegel sees reason as the
ultimate end. Obviously, this
position is unconscionable in our context and it opposes the centrality of life
and action in the Torah and Halakha, as well as in the thought of Rav
Kook.
2. For some of the philosophers, the
similarity arises from direct influence.
Kabbalistic ideas were very widespread in
Questions for
thought after the letter and the lecture
I
wish to cite a passage from the nineteenth century philosopher Fichte on the
essence of philosophy:
The
essence of philosophy would consist in this: to trace all multiplicity back to
absolute oneness
so that he reciprocally conceives multiplicity through oneness
and oneness through multiplicity
The error of all philosophers prior to Kant
was in their secretly placing multiplicity at the fore of their methods, instead
of true oneness
[2]
(The Science of Knowing: J.G. Fichtes 1804 Lectures on the
Wissenschafteslehre, translated by Walter E. Wright [the last sentence
the error... is my translation of Bergmans Hebrew translation
EF])
In
light of the last two lectures, explain how Rav Kook would respond to Fichtes
philosophical challenge.
Sources for
Further and Broader Study
Studies on
Rav Kook
Eliezer
Goldman, Mechkarim Ve-Iyunim, pp.
201-207.
Yona
Ben Sasson, Ha-Reaya Kook Ve-Hagrid Soloveitchik: Yesodot
Metodologiim
Ve-Hashvaatam,
in Be-Oro, C. Chamiel (ed.).
Avinoam
Rosenak, Halakha, Aggada, U-Nevua Be-Torat Eretz Yisrael Le-Or Achdut
Ha-Hafachim Be-Mishnat Ha-Reaya, in Ha-Tziyonut Ha-Datit I, A. Sagi
and D. Schwartz (eds.).
Idem.,
Chinukh U-Meta-Halakha Be-Mishnat Ha-Rav Kook, Daat 46
(5761).
The
last two articles apply the methodology of the unity of opposites to Rav Kooks
own teachings.
Other
sources
1. It is worthwhile to study the tenth
essay of R. Saadia Gaons Emunot Ve-Deot. One who studies this will find a nice
development of a philosophical-moral model that contains opposites for
metaphysical reasons.
2. On Chabad, see Rachel Elior, The
Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad (1992)
(relevant chapters).
3. On philosophy, see Samuel Hugo Bergman,
Ha-Filosofia Ha-Chadasha, vol. III, pp. 140-164. These pages deal with the topic of our
lecture. I strongly recommend also
reading the continuation of Bergmans discussion of Schelling, which is
informative, until the end of the volume, where he indicates the connection
between Schelling and Rav Kook in a different context.
[1] I find
it fitting to cite here a beautiful homily of the Apter Rebbe, author of Ohev
Yisrael, on the hymn Shalom Aleikhem, which expresses Divine
perfection in a manner that differs somewhat from the principle of the unity of
opposites: This is why we recite Shalom Aleikhem: It is written, He
makes peace in His heavens (Iyov 25:2) because there is an angel from
the power and element of fire and there is another angel from the power and
element of water. They are
opposites and rival each other, but when each one contemplates and understands
his origins and sees that he is from the Creator without Whose influence they
are like nothing, each unifies himself with the Creator. Once they achieve this, there is no
contradiction, for all of their opposition is unified in a wondrous unity. This is the meaning of He makes peace
in His heavens he specifically makes it, meaning that God Himself, when the
angels become nullified to His essence, as it were, He makes peace between
them. Similarly, when sanctifying
the month, we unify the power of all objects, i.e., the Name Elokim
with which all of the upper and lower worlds were created, to His essence. Then there is peace upon you (shalom
aleikhem) and there is no opposition (Ohev Yisrael, New Collection,
Teruma).
[2] Multiplicity can be in the duality of
matter and spirit, being and consciousness, finite and infinite, etc., each of
which stands alone.
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!