[Avodah] ain Od Milvado v. Bechira

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:16:13PM +0000, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: RMB seems to be saying that if "ein od milvado" truly means that we
: have no identity outside of Hashem, then it is our thoughts, our bechira,
: and our very selves which are the illusions. But I find that difficult
: to accept, because if our existence is only an illusion, then reward
: and punishment must also be merely an illusion.

Yes... From the perspective of the Yeish, we are ayin. (And from the
perspective that we are yeish, then Hashem is the Ayin of yeish meiAyin.)

We are illusory beings having illusory experiences, including sechar
va'onesh. And, for that matter, illusory bechirah. However, this doesn't
violate the ikkarim. It defines down what existence means. All people
are still subject to sechar va'onesh that is just as real or unreal as
they and their decisions are.

Which is why I got more stuck on the circular dependency -- that the
illusion requires the person who has it who in term only exists with
the illusion. It's an infinite regress, but each time the loop gets
to a lower and lower ontology. It's an illusion held by a mind that only
exists within the illusion. Maybe looking at these two MC Escher works
would help explain my problem
    http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/recogn-bmp/LW410.jpg
    http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/back-bmp/LW355.jpg

: Rather, I'd like to suggest that tzimtzum is very real, and that
: somehow, Hashem did perform this uber-miracle, and that as a result,
: reward and punishment are very real as well...

The machloqes about what is tzimtzum is one of the earliest points in
the logical plain where chassidus and hisnagdus split. The Gra held of
literal tzimtzum of the Or Ein Sof, the Besht of figurative tzimtzum of
the Ein Sof Himself. Which is the logical underpinning of the Chassidic
focus on immanence and thus justifying a derekh built on deveiqus.

See the thread at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TZIMTZUM%20KEPESHUTO>.
I particularly like how my summary of the machloqes between REED and RMMS
came out at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n063.shtml#09>. Retouching
a snippet:

    The L Rebbe adds two axis to this:
    - Tzimtzum could be taken (1) literally (2) or figuratively; and
    - It could be taken as referring to (a) Atzmuso or to (b) His Or.

    In RYGB's lexicon "tzimtzum kipeshuto" is (1a) the literal tzimtzum
    of Atzmus, and he cites REED that this is heretical....

    It seems clear that numerous misnagdim of the Alter Rebbe's era
    held of (1) literal tzimtzum. It is far less clear whether they were
    speaking of (a) Atzmus or (b) Or. The L rebbe asserts that they did
    hold of (1a) literal tzimtzum of Atzmus. And that's what one finds
    described as the misnagdic position in numerous L web sites. Because
    of the above, RYGB asserts thay they're mistaken, confusing misnagdic
    belief in (1b) literal tzimtzum of Or with the kefirah of (1a).

:                     If we are part of Hashem, then free will is absurd;
: yet we believe that we *do* have free will, and my suggestion is that
: this is made possible by the uber-miracle of tzimtzum.

My suggestion was that we reached the point at which the real answer
is beyond the limits of human intellect, and trying to provide one is
more likely to produce error than anything useful. I would argue this
is why chassidus doesn't stop a line of reasoning just because it seems
to produce paradox, IOW, because the limitations of being human forces
it into Kant-like antinomies.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?