[Avodah] More Philosophy, If Anyone's Up to It

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 08:11:02PM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
: I was just curious, do my fellow listmembers (as individuals, not the group
: as a whole) view religious truths as metaphysical realities, personal norms,
: covenantal vows?  How do you view the relationship (triangle) between
: personal feelings/motivations, religious truths, and the actual goals of
: religious life.
: 
: What inspires/drives your religious spirit or comittment?  Love of G-d,
: religious or metaphysical reverence of Him, awe or appreciation of Divine
: might, fear of it, love of family and friends, emotional attachment to
: religious ethics, to metaphysical truths, respect for an orderly system of
: living?

I see this as two very different questions.

The first is how I view Yahadus.

I see its truths as Manufacturer's Instructions. As RSRiskin presented
it when I was in HS, a "Divine Anthropology" as opposed to the usual
religious aim of providing a "Human Theology". Being good pays for the
same reason that hammers work better at driving nails than breaking
boards.

The covenant at Sinai was our buying into a new role, priests for everyone
else. We are their teaching, just as the Torah is ours. New role, a new
function in addition to the first, more instructions.



The second question is what motivates me to keep on trying to live by
its dictates. And it's none ot the suggestions RIT provides.

Rather, it's simple fear of death. Contributing to the relaying of
the mesorah and the Jewish mission is my only chance to cheat death
by becoming part of something eternal. Not fully satisfying, there is
still the existential nausea that is death. But the best I can do to do
something permanent.

: A related question for this week: Anyone have any thoughts about the unity
: of the soul? Parallels to the unity of G-d? How does our view of the soul
: and our own assessment of our emotions toward others affect our
: understanding of religious statements about people? Do these push us
: towards or away from a metaphysical understanding of religious statements?
: Towards or away from a purely emotive understanding of such statements?

I do not think the soul is unified. If there is one thing the human
experience isn't, it's unified. We are to strive for unity, for sheleimus,
but it's an unreachable ideal. To truly be one would be to make one's
Tzelem E-lokim fully manifest.

The Seifer haYetzirah speaks of three aspects to the soul: nefesh, ruach
and neshamah (often reffered to as Nara"n). By the time the notion leaves
Tzefas, these three are declared the penimiyos and there are two more
aspects which are chitzoniyos: chayah and yechidah (Nara"n cha"i). R
Aryeh Kaplan left me with the impression that Naran describes self,
and the aspects which are external are at a level where the souls aren't
fully individuated.

You asked about my own position. It's based on naran as understood by
the Gra in Peirush al Kamah Agados (most easily found as an appendix in
The Juggler and the King) which seems to parallel the Maharal's Derekh
haChaim on Avos 1:2 -- the three pillars.

(The Tanya goes further and speaks of a nefesh E-lokis and nefesh
beheimis, each of which posessing a naran. You asked about my own
position, but I must acknowledge it exists.)

I recently started this topic on my blog. I think man's nature is
threefold. See http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/08/three-desires.shtml

A couple of quotes. From my conclusion:
> It is important to note how all consider the basic human condition to
> come in threes, even if they don't agree what the three are. The same is
> true of Freud's Id-Ego-Super Ego, Adler's Child-Adult-Parent, etc... Why?

> When the alarm goes off, a person is conflicted. We can group his calls
> into two. One side realizes he has important things to accomplish that
> day, he has to get to shul, not be too late to his job, etc... The other
> just wants to hit the snooze button and get more sleep. Or, in choosing
> whether or not to sin, the yeitzer hatov says one thing, the yeitzer
> hara is recommending another. A movie or television show has a person
> making a decision, and they have a little image of him dressed as an
> angel on one shoulder, and another dressed as a devil on the other.

> But you notice in those pictures, there are always three images of the
> person -- the two angels, and the person himself. When I hear opposing
> callings from each yeitzer, or my body wants one thing and my sense
> of duty says another, there is always an "I" doing the hearing who has
> to decide between them. In the courtroom of my mind, there is a lawyer
> arguing each side, and a judge.

> Decision making inherently conjures up three entities. And being a person
> is all about freedom of will.

And from the my translation of the Maharal:
> Therefore, the godly Tanna writes that one pillar that the universe
> stands upon is the Torah, for the pillar completes man so that he can
> be a finished creation with respect to himself.

> After that he says "on avodah".... For from this man can be thought
> complete and good toward He Who created him -- by serving Him.... With
> regard to the third, it is necessary for man to be complete and good
> with others, and that is through gemillus chassadim.

> You also must understand that these three pillars parallel three things
> in each man: the mind, the living soul, and the body. None of them
> have existence without G-d. The existence of the soul is when it comes
> close to Hashem by serving Him.... From the perspective of the mind,
> the man gets his existence through Torah, for it is through the Torah
> that man attaches himself to G-d. To the body, man gets his existence
> through gemillus chassadim for the body has no closeness or attachment
> to Hashem, just that Hashem is kind to all. When man performs kindness
> G-d is kind to him, and so gives him existence.

And returning to my summary:
> The Maharal works with a similar three, however to him they represent
> two different things. In terms of excess of longing for each world in
> which we live:

>     * Qin'ah -- jealousy is wanting more than our place, not just
>       walking the path to shmayim.
>     * Ta'avah -- too much longing for the pleasures of this world:
>       food, sex, another hour's sleep, etc...
>     * Kavod -- too much interest in the self yields egotism

> In terms of deficiencies to how we relate those we encounter in each
> world:
>     * Idolatry -- the obvious antithesis of serving Hashem
>     * Murder -- the obvious antithesis of being kind to the other people
>       we encounter in this world.
>     * Sexual immorality -- here it's not being described as too much
>       desire for this world, but too little interest in refining
>       oneself, the ultimate goal of Torah and the universe between our
>       ears. After all, when looking at our actions' impacts on others,
>       the only ones harmed by consentual sex is the participants
>       themselves.

Similarly in the mishkan. The three worlds are represented by the
keilim that lack crowns:
    qiyor - taharah in one's relationship with olam hazeh
    menorah - wisdom within one's mind
    mizbeiach - avodah

And the three relationships:
    shulchan - the support of Kelal Yisrael
    aron - perfection of the self from the wisdom of the luchos to the
	middos of the keruvim
    mizbeiach hazahav - sent representing the fully spiritual nature of
        avodah, the reiach nikhoach Lashem with no mediator

Or at the seder, Rabban Gamliel's version:
    maror - sharing someone else's tza'ar
    matzah - ki bechipazon, zerizus
    pesach - avodah

Inyana deyoma: teshuvah is repair of the self, tefillah is repair of our
relationship to HQBH, tzedaqah - bein adam lachaveiro.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.... The avos are related, teshuv

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha at aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507