Baal Shem Tov And Joseph Smith

[volgadon]

Wayfarer,

I do appreciate you starting this thread, it is a subject I thoroughly enjoy. I'll address your points as I get the time.

As I understand it, and I'm sure that volgadon will correct my understanding here, Baal Shem Tov, "Besht" for short, was an 18th century mystic, kabbalist, and founder of hasidism. In my opinion, Besht was to Judaism what Joseph Smith was to Christianity: he had mystical experiences, and turned Judaism upsidedown, fighting against the moribund rabbinical talmudic scholars as Joseph Smith fought against the creeds and orthodoxy.

The idea of a moribund talmudism is a false construct. Pilpul, hair-splitting, dialectic casuistry, did not go away with Hasidism, and is alive and well today. I've seen my fair share of it growing up in Israel. Pilpul played an important role in a religion centered upon a divine law. In the Babylonian Talmud, T. Sanhedrin 17A, one of the requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin is the ability to declare a lizard- a ritually impure animal in the Torah- clean, and to do so out of the Torah itself. The idea is that unless you can look at a problem from every possible angle, you aren't fit to judge in serious, perhaps even capital cases. In his paean to the lost world of Eastern European Jewry, R. Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that, "They did not know how to take anything for granted. Everything had to have a reason, and they were more interested in reasons than in things." These were people for whom, "The plain meaning of words, the straight line of a general rule seemed too shallow. too thin, too narrow to hold the expanding power of their minds." If anything, pilpul was a way of injecting vitality into the tradition. Using pilpul, one could find new applications for the law in situations which it did not cover. It also allowed conflicting opinions to be reconciled, showing that all the religious authorities throughout the ages taught the same truths. Heschel further states that, "Endeavoring to solve an antinomy or contradiction raised by a seventeenth-century supercommentary on the Talmud, they were able in the same breath to throb with sympathy for Israel and all people afflicted with distress. Study was a technique of sublimating feeling into thought, of transposing dreams into syllogisms, of expressing grief in formulating keen theoretical difficulties and joy in finding a solution to a difficult passage in Maimonides. Tension of the soul found an outlet in contriving sagacious, almost insoluble riddles. They invented new logical devices in explaining the word of God, thrilled with yearning after the Holy. To figure out an answer to gnawing doubts was to the supreme pleasure." Heschel also pointed out that pilpul was applied to the Kabbalah as well.[1] A highly influential 18th century kabbalist, the Ramhal, considered talmudic pilpul a powerful means of warfare against the kellipot, that is, shells or husks of evil which had to be shattered in order to release the truth. Pilpul was the "expanding lights."[2]

Of course, as there was good pilpul, there was also bad pilpul which was low on substance and high on flashy shows of mental gymnastics and building castles suspended in the air. Several prominent rabbinic figures (who were themselves exceptional talmudists), such as the 16th century Maharal of Prague, railed against this arid form of pilpul. Even so, it was the abuse of the technique rather than the technique itself which came in for criticism.

The early 18th century also saw the spread of popular works on Kabbalah, works on the esoteric meaning of the commandments, and works of kabbalistic ethics, and the Sephardic liturgy which was very kabbalistic. The Holy Shelah's "Shenei Luhot HaBrit" is a classic and very frequently read example of this popularisation of Kabbalah. This was all occuring before the Besht became prominent.

Manny of the leading talmudists were also prominent kabbalists, and, guess what, were called hasidim. This pattern was not a new one in Judaism. One of the greatest legal authorities in Judaism, R. Joseph Karo, the 15th century codifier of Jewish law, kept a mystical journal of his angelic visitations.

I wish more people would read R. Aaron Wertheim's "Laws and Custom in Hasidism." By focusing on the Halakhah and the meaning of Jewish observance, itt helps prevent a distorted view of Hasidism and better contextualises their history.

Now, there were some extreme groups of hasidim bordering on antinomianism, that was the root of the conflict between the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim, but this occured thirty years after the Besht, and was roundly condemned by the majority of Hasidic leaders, such as Shneur Zalman of Liady. The Mitnagdim, who placed a premium on talmudic study, were no less fervent in their spirituality than Hasidim, and one can also point to Hasidic individuals early on in the movement's history that felt stifled by it.

Much of the concept of the Besht as revitalising a moribund, Talmudic Judaism has to do with Christian views of Judaism. This sentiment was shamelessly exploited by Jacob Frank in order to gain Christian support for his group, but it is a meaningless prism for viewing Jewish history from the inside. Frank was also highly disdainful of kabbalists, even using toilet humour to ridicule the concept of the Ten Sefirot.[3]

Of all things last night, his name kept coming up in my dreams. So, reading this morning the wikipedia entry about Baal Shem Tov this morning, I read about his teachings about god and man. Here are some excerpts:

He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Kabbalah by Mitnagdim, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which God reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God

Whoever does not believe that God resides in all things, but separates God and them in his thoughts, has not the right conception of God.

(wikipedia

)

I wish the wiki had sourced its statements here, because they simply aren't true. I've found nowhere indicating that the Besht rejected the absolutely fundamental Kabbalistic concept of emanations and the Ten Sefirot.

The Hasidic view of panentheism is easily traced back to beliefs held by R. Moshe Cordovero of Safed (where, coincidentally, I was born).

Speech was comprised of letters, and letters were vessels for carrying the divine.[4] This was not considered as something different from the proccess of emanation, and is fairly consistent wtih the views of the Zohar on creation.[5]

[1]Abraham Joshua Heschel, "The Earth Is the Lord's: The Inner World of the Jew in Eastern Europe," p. 51-55.

[2]Adir Ba-Merom 13.

[3]

[4]http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2012/05/abrahams-divine-power-of-speech.html

[5]http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2010/01/joseph-smith-and-beginning.html

[WalkerW]

Wayfarer,

I do appreciate you starting this thread, it is a subject I thoroughly enjoy. I'll address your points as I get the time.

The idea of a moribund talmudism is a false construct. Pilpul, hair-splitting, dialectic casuistry, did not go away with Hasidism, and is alive and well today. I've seen my fair share of it growing up in Israel. Pilpul played an important role in a religion centered upon a divine law. In the Babylonian Talmud, T. Sanhedrin 17A, one of the requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin is the ability to declare a lizard- a ritually impure animal in the Torah- clean, and to do so out of the Torah itself. The idea is that unless you can look at a problem from every possible angle, you aren't fit to judge in serious, perhaps even capital cases. In his paean to the lost world of Eastern European Jewry, R. Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that, "They did not know how to take anything for granted. Everything had to have a reason, and they were more interested in reasons than in things." These were people for whom, "The plain meaning of words, the straight line of a general rule seemed too shallow. too thin, too narrow to hold the expanding power of their minds." If anything, pilpul was a way of injecting vitality into the tradition. Using pilpul, one could find new applications for the law in situations which it did not cover. It also allowed conflicting opinions to be reconciled, showing that all the religious authorities throughout the ages taught the same truths. Heschel further states that, "Endeavoring to solve an antinomy or contradiction raised by a seventeenth-century supercommentary on the Talmud, they were able in the same breath to throb with sympathy for Israel and all people afflicted with distress. Study was a technique of sublimating feeling into thought, of transposing dreams into syllogisms, of expressing grief in formulating keen theoretical difficulties and joy in finding a solution to a difficult passage in Maimonides. Tension of the soul found an outlet in contriving sagacious, almost insoluble riddles. They invented new logical devices in explaining the word of God, thrilled with yearning after the Holy. To figure out an answer to gnawing doubts was to the supreme pleasure." Heschel also pointed out that pilpul was applied to the Kabbalah as well.[1] A highly influential 18th century kabbalist, the Ramhal, considered talmudic pilpul a powerful means of warfare against the kellipot, that is, shells or husks of evil which had to be shattered in order to release the truth. Pilpul was the "expanding lights."[2]

Of course, as there was good pilpul, there was also bad pilpul which was low on substance and high on flashy shows of mental gymnastics and building castles suspended in the air. Several prominent rabbinic figures (who were themselves exceptional talmudists), such as the 16th century Maharal of Prague, railed against this arid form of pilpul. Even so, it was the abuse of the technique rather than the technique itself which came in for criticism.

The early 18th century also saw the spread of popular works on Kabbalah, works on the esoteric meaning of the commandments, and works of kabbalistic ethics, and the Sephardic liturgy which was very kabbalistic. The Holy Shelah's "Shenei Luhot HaBrit" is a classic and very frequently read example of this popularisation of Kabbalah. This was all occuring before the Besht became prominent.

Manny of the leading talmudists were also prominent kabbalists, and, guess what, were called hasidim. This pattern was not a new one in Judaism. One of the greatest legal authorities in Judaism, R. Joseph Karo, the 15th century codifier of Jewish law, kept a mystical journal of his angelic visitations.

I wish more people would read R. Aaron Wertheim's "Laws and Custom in Hasidism." By focusing on the Halakhah and the meaning of Jewish observance, itt helps prevent a distorted view of Hasidism and better contextualises their history.

Now, there were some extreme groups of hasidim bordering on antinomianism, that was the root of the conflict between the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim, but this occured thirty years after the Besht, and was roundly condemned by the majority of Hasidic leaders, such as Shneur Zalman of Liady. The Mitnagdim, who placed a premium on talmudic study, were no less fervent in their spirituality than Hasidim, and one can also point to Hasidic individuals early on in the movement's history that felt stifled by it.

Much of the concept of the Besht as revitalising a moribund, Talmudic Judaism has to do with Christian views of Judaism. This sentiment was shamelessly exploited by Jacob Frank in order to gain Christian support for his group, but it is a meaningless prism for viewing Jewish history from the inside. Frank was also highly disdainful of kabbalists, even using toilet humour to ridicule the concept of the Ten Sefirot.[3]

I wish the wiki had sourced its statements here, because they simply aren't true. I've found nowhere indicating that the Besht rejected the absolutely fundamental Kabbalistic concept of emanations and the Ten Sefirot.

The Hasidic view of panentheism is easily traced back to beliefs held by R. Moshe Cordovero of Safed (where, coincidentally, I was born).

Speech was comprised of letters, and letters were vessels for carrying the divine.[4] This was not considered as something different from the proccess of emanation, and is fairly consistent wtih the views of the Zohar on creation.[5]

[1]Abraham Joshua Heschel, "The Earth Is the Lord's: The Inner World of the Jew in Eastern Europe," p. 51-55.

[2]Adir Ba-Merom 13.

[3]http://www.mormondia...__+jacob +frank

[4]http://calba-savua.b...-of-speech.html

[5]http://calba-savua.b...-beginning.html

Allen, you need to blog more. I've probably learned just as much if not more from you than many of the fine scholars at BYU and elsewhere.

Edited September 9, 2012 by WalkerW

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, do you ever tire of labeling and dismissing people you don't agree with? I would never call myself a 'neo-mystic', but a fully faithful latter-day saint. a Mormon. and perhaps a wayfaring fool. I choose the label, not you. Please advise if you have a problem with that.

"No such thing as 'mysticism'?" Really? By very definition, mysticism is an experience of oneness. A hindu, christian, or sufi mystic would never characterize their experience of oneness as an extension of their esoteric tradition. While the mechanism to getting 'there' certainly varies, and involves specific artifacts of the individual tradition, the experience of oneness is quite similar from tradition to tradition, and by definition that experience cannot be considered divided by traditions in any way.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. I'm not dismissing you or labeling you. I have never said you aren't a faithful LDS. I am simply trying to understand and analyze your ideas.

I call you a neo-mystic because, based on what you have to say, that seems to me to be what you are. Through the late nineteenth century, mystical movements were always deeply rooting in specific religious traditions. Although there certainly was overlap and syncretism, a mystic was always part of a specific mystical movement or path, within a specific religious tradition. This changed beginning in the late 19th century with the study of what could be called comparative mysticism.

Beginning to some extent with William James, but really expanding with Underhill, Stace, Jung, Zaehner, Otto and Parrinder, conceptualizations of the nature of mysticism changed radically. This amounts to the decontextualization of mystical traditions from their historical roots, and the conflation of mysticism into a single metatradition. (It also often, but not always, includes: viewing all mystical experiences as fundamentally the same, though expressed in different cultural forms; claims that all religious experiences are mystical; and, form the secular perspective, that mystical experience can be reduced to subjection interpretations of brain chemistry.) There is probably overlap in these conceptualizations with the theories of the Traditionalist school of Guenon, Schuon, Burkhardt, Nasr, etc. That is Traditionalist understandings of Religion as a whole lends itself to Neo-mystical understandings of mysticism.

To me, Neo-mystics are 20-21st century people who accept these basic assumptions about the nature of mysticism (minus the secularist claims) and seek transcendent mystical experience, but detached from any specific mystical tradition, way, or master. To the Neo-mystic, all mystical traditions are equal and essentially interchangeable. Your claim that "A hindu, christian, or sufi mystic would never characterize their experience of oneness as an extension of their esoteric tradition" seems to me to be a classic Neo-mystical conceptualization, which I am confident no traditional Hindu, Christian, or Sufi mystics would accept.

Now, maybe I've misunderstood you, but that seems to me to be what you are saying. So that's why I called you a Neo-mystic.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

See Stephen Sharot, Messianism, Mysticism, and Magic: A Sociological Analysis of Jewish Religious Movements (1982).

Very good chapter in that book on Hasidic Tzadikim.

[mfbukowski]

Quoted from my Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience essay, linked on my profile.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

FWIW I am working on a review or essay or commentary- whatever you want to call it on your essay, which I will PM to you when it is done.

[mfbukowski]

It's fascinating that Besht, then, was also treated hagiographically just like Joseph Smith. It raises to me the question as to whether the history of the man matters at all. A myth may teach, if the lesson resonates and is found to be of sustaining value.

This is precisely why I have little interest in the various controversies surrounding the Book of Abraham. I find the history to be irrelevant to the book itself.

[mfbukowski]

Reality doesn't matter? Your personal subjective interpretation is all that matters? Really?

Is a testimony "objective"?

In that case isn't it indeed your personal subjective interpretation that is all that matters?

How do you prove to others that God spoke to you and gave you a testimony?

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, there is a world of difference between "pantheism" and "panentheism". I'll repeat what I said before:

While the latter verse describes that all things are a manifestation (witness) of god, the first verse, in Section 88, clearly lay out that at least at that time, Joseph Smith stated a distinctly panentheistic comment:

D&C 88:13

...who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity,

who is in the midst of all things

.

One cannot so easily dismiss this comment in saying "there is nothing pan[en]theistic about LDS theology or experience", although I agree that there is no pantheism in mormonism -- big difference.

That depense upon the definition of 'mystical' one uses, wouldn't that be the case?

There is nothing mystical about 'dialogic' revelation, but is all 'revelation' dialogic? Where do D&C sections 8 and 9 come into play?

First, I started this parable because i thought there might be parallels in an aspect revelatory processes between the Besht and Joseph Smith, for reasons I note in a thread, above. Perhaps some think those parallels don't exist -- I'm just trying to sort thing out. In the process of doing so, I'm exploring the complex sentiments expressed in the revelations of Joseph Smith. Section 88 appears quite mystical to me, and perhaps others, for I have lived within some very mystical traditions, and I find parallels -- positive, uplifting, worthwhile parallels. To dismiss the parallels because of a label seems, to me, a big unwarranted, but what do I know?

So questions back to you, Robert:

- Do you see a difference between pantheism and panentheism?

- How do you explain 88:13 if there are no panentheistic sentiments at all in the Church?

- Was Joseph Smith so rigid in his doctrine so as to declare a formal, creedal orthodoxy whereupon we can declare with certainty he was neither a mystic (at least in part) nor having panentheistic statements in his doctrine?

Thank you for bringing panentheism to my attention. I was completely unaware of it till now. However, after reading a couple of descriptions of it online (including the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia....ism#cite_ref-16 ), I find it incompatible with Mormonism.

It is true that some RLDS and LDS process theologians appreciate aspects of the thinking of Whitehead and Hartshorne, but I think that panentheism would be a bridge too far for them in defining Mormonism.

As to D&C 88:13, and the like. I see them as highly symbolic and figurative statements, very much like Book of Abraham 3:21 "in the midst of all the intelligences," 23, "he stood in the midst of them," and some of the identifications of Facsimile 2. For the reasons I have already stated above, I don't see panentheism as a viable form of Mormonism.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

The idea of a finite God co-eternal with matter that is neither evil nor good -- which is what I believe Joseph Smith espoused (but did not get from anyone else except God) was not conventional in the 1830s-1840s. Nor does it seem consonant with the mysticism you describe in your post. Maybe I am wrong about that. It seems that to arrive at some of your comparisons one would have to minimize much of what was divergent, from traditional Christianity, about Joseph Smith's teachings on matter and also intelligences. In that way, one could try to shoehorn Joseph Smith's teachings into a particular mysticism, even Platonic Christianity. In other words, if we lop off enough, we can interpret "all things" in D&C 88 in those ways. The worlds Jesus Christ created then become all things that exist or are material.

The view of God's immanence that you are describing can be found in mysticism and could be read into D&C 88 (which has been interpreted in various ways) in isolation, I agree, but the idea that matter is evil is also found in much mysticism. You mention moving away from Plato, but actually I think it is interesting how Platonism can be seen as underlying the idea that matter is good because of a divine identity, as well as the idea that matter is evil.

I'm not saying that Plato is any kind of direct influence here, just that I don't see how the Besht is more relevant than some others.

Regarding D&C 88... Even within D&C 88, the idea can be found that God himself is bound by laws. To the extent that God foresaw the consequences of the natural laws of the world (planet, universe, multiple universes, or whatever) he organized directly or indirectly, and those consequences are consistent with his goals, those laws represent his power. However, there is also an aspect of a lack of power to this. How God accomplishes the plan of salvation may be constrained by laws that are not of God's own making. Personally, I am fascinated by this duality of how laws may reflect both God's power, and his lack of power in certain contexts, or his finiteness as a being that is co-eternal with both matter and intelligences.

Very perceptive and well stated.

[mfbukowski]

Regarding D&C 88... Even within D&C 88, the idea can be found that God himself is bound by laws. To the extent that God foresaw the consequences of the natural laws of the world (planet, universe, multiple universes, or whatever) he organized directly or indirectly, and those consequences are consistent with his goals, those laws represent his power. However, there is also an aspect of a lack of power to this. How God accomplishes the plan of salvation may be constrained by laws that are not of God's own making. Personally, I am fascinated by this duality of how laws may reflect both God's power, and his lack of power in certain contexts, or his finiteness as a being that is co-eternal with both matter and intelligences.

But there are other ways to see this.

I believe that God is self-determined; what that means is that he has volunteered to be subject to laws which he as created for himself, much as we are when we voluntarily accept covenants which in one way "limit" our freedom, but on the other, by sacrificing one element of choice, give us a greater set of choices.

This is what Isaiah Berlin would call "Positive Liberty" and is best described as the kind of freedom from poor consequences which law itself brings. An example would be to accept that one will not drink alcohol thereby limiting your freedom to do so, but on the other hand this small sacrifice also eliminates the possibility of health problems, drunken driving and all the adverse consequences which drinking might bring. We have voluntarily determined in advance (we are "self-determined") that we will subject ourselves to the law "Thou shalt not drink", but by so doing we gain the greater freedom of avoiding the slavery to alcohol and adverse consequences which come with it.

Similarly, by having traffic laws we all accept, we are self determining ourselves as a culture to not drive at will 100 miles per hour down the sidewalk, and by so doing, we are avoiding the obvious adverse consequences associated with that behavior.

That is why I believe that it is said that God would cease to be God if he did not follow natural law- not because he was violating someone else's law, but because it would be self-contradictory for him to do so.

He would cease to be God because he was violating his own law he set for himself- he would be breaking his word and living a lie.

That is not what Gods do!

So on this view, God obeying laws he has voluntarily accepted for himself in no way implies that he is in any way contingent, just self-determined.

[mfbukowski]

Speech was comprised of letters, and letters were vessels for carrying the divine.[4] This was not considered as something different from the proccess of emanation, and is fairly consistent wtih the views of the Zohar on creation.[5]

[1]Abraham Joshua Heschel, "The Earth Is the Lord's: The Inner World of the Jew in Eastern Europe," p. 51-55.

[2]Adir Ba-Merom 13.

[3]http://www.mormondia...__+jacob +frank

[4]http://calba-savua.b...-of-speech.html

[5]http://calba-savua.b...-beginning.html

Thanks- fascinating stuff which coheres I think very well with Linguistic Constructivism and that view that God as Man participates in the Sacred with his children through the symbolism of language and that through the Word, all things were created- which is of course in John 1

For me the "mystic" is no more or less that what is Unspeakable- direct experience.

I think that dividing it between categories such as "numinous" etc in fact seek to make it definable and as such doom the attempt to failure. One cannot speak about what is unspeakable.

That theme is common to both Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein.

[volgadon]

From the very beginning Besht fought against that contempt for the world which, through the influence of Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah, had almost become a dogma among the Jews.

The late, great Martin Buber tended to underplay and even obscure the concept of "Hitpashtut haGashmiyut," the stripping away of corporeality as it appeared among the Hasidim, even in the traditions attached to the Besht. In Buber's "Tales of the Hasidim," book one, there is a story entitled "The Debate." In it, the Besht makes an ascent of the soul to the heavens in order to dispute with R. Isaac Luria one of the finer points of the esoteric intents for use in the mikveh.

"He threw back his head, and his face began to shine with that radiance which anounced to his disciples that his soul was rising to the worlds above." All well and good, but if we look at the source, Kaidaner's "Sippurim Noraim," there are some crucial differences. "He threw back his head and his face became a torch of fire and his eyes bulged as was his fashion when stripping his self of corporeality during his ascent to the upper realms. A great fear and trembling fell upon his disciples." The last sentence is a classic of unintentional humour, IMHO, but if we compare the two passages, it becomes obvious that Buber made some significant changes when retelling the story. The most obvious is that Buber dropped the bit about shedding corporeality. He then changed the Besht's physical appearance during the soul ascent, using more benign language drawn from the description of Moses at Sinai. In Kaidaner's story, the Besht, after shedding corporeality, is described in language identical to that used for the angel Metatron in the Alpha Beta of Rabbi Akiva. In other words, Buber obscured the angelic description of the Besht, substituting it with a more this-worldly description of Moses, drawn from the Bible.

Again, back to the idea of the sacredness of creation. This concept of the world's inherent goodness puts perspective on the hasidic concept of tikkum olam/repair of the world into context -- we should be caring for the world, treating it with utmost respect -- an inherently green viewpoint so needed today. Not sure I see that attitude, politically, in LDS thinking, although many prophetic teachings speak of caring for the land.

As noble a sentiment as that is, an inherently green viewpoint actually has very little to do with Tikkun Olam. Tikkun Olam is a fundamental teaching of Lurianic Kabbalah, so I think we ought to be careful before jumping to the wiki's conclusions. Lurianic Kabbalah emphasised that something had gone disastrously wrong in the universe. I'll treat the idea simply. There was the breaking of the vessels, the forms which God created to hold his light were incapable of containing the light because of its intensity, and thus shattered. Then there was Adam's sin, which threw the world into disarray. So now, the holy is mixed with the impure, the good with the evil, truth with falsehood. There are generally beneficial deeds, especially in the ethical sphere, and there are also more specific theurgic operations, such as prayers with intent, or proper observation of ritual, and even deeds pertaining to unique situations.

For example, if you see a fish swimming in the river, and know that in it is trapped the soul of a man who never said the proper blessing over food, then you are to catch that fish and cook it, in order to say the proper blessing and repair the trapped soul. Once repaired, the soul is freed. Not what I would call a particularly green viewpoint.

There are parallels with Joseph Smith, however, in the general idea of repairing a world gone awry. I recommend the video in post #8. http://www.mormondia...mith’s-project/

Kudos to Robert Smith.

He considered care of the body as necessary as care of the soul; since matter is also a manifestation of God, and must not be considered as hostile or opposed to Him.

(wikipedia)

This is doctrinally identical to LDS thinking. All spirit is matter. And it adds life to the idea that the Word of Wisdom, in its original intent and not current interpretation, is to care for the body.

Care of the body is actually a talmudic concept attributed, among others, to the early sage Hillel. In Hasidic thought, however, there are many viewpoints on matter, and quite a few of them are far from being positive. The general consensus is that matter must be purified, uplifted, and, finally, cast off.

Edited September 10, 2012 by volgadon

[wayfarer]

Great responses, everyone -- I've been busy and need to leave country for a bit... will respond back when able.

[Bill Hamblin]

Is a testimony "objective"?

In that case isn't it indeed your personal subjective interpretation that is all that matters?

How do you prove to others that God spoke to you and gave you a testimony?

Did I use the word objective? Either the Besht really taught a particular saying or he didn't. We may not be able to discern this for certain give the nature of our evidence, but there is an ontological reality here. And it is important.

Proving something to others have nothing to do with the ontological reality of a vision or not. Most things that happen can't be proven to have happened.

[volgadon]

Great responses, everyone -- I've been busy and need to leave country for a bit... will respond back when able.

Best of luck.

[volgadon]

To that extent, tracing the origin of teachings may be critical, if at all possible

It absolutely is critical. Even if we cannot trace a teaching back 100% to the Besht, I would rather discuss the actual sources than the wildly inaccurate wiki offerings.

[volgadon]

nor any similarity at all between the BESHT and Joseph Smith

I wouldn't say there are no similarities at all, but I do find more similarities in many aspects between Joseph and the Vilna Gaon, and even a later Hasidic master like the Komarno Rebbe, than between Joseph and the Besht.

[volgadon]

Did I use the word objective? Either the Besht really taught a particular saying or he didn't. We may not be able to discern this for certain give the nature of our evidence, but there is an ontological reality here. And it is important.

Proving something to others have nothing to do with the ontological reality of a vision or not. Most things that happen can't be proven to have happened.

Quoted for truth.

[volgadon]

I sense that Besht was a bit of a Middle Way Jew.

I think the few authentic writings we have from the Besht paint a different picture. He could be very strict, demanding, even reactionary.

He appealed for a lenient ruling on the kosher status of meat to be overturned in favour of a stricter one, and involved himself in the elite's power struggle against the rabbi and the butchers' guild. http://books.google.com/books?id=hqRSHVUpX_0C&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=rosman+besht+leyba+butcher+lenient&source=bl&ots=syJg3UkQHD&sig=9dGL9YsXjh4R97ODAU7WMFdvewY&hl=en#v=onepage&q=rosman%20besht%20leyba%20butcher%20lenient&f=false

In the "Holy Epistle," the Besht stated that people ought to become martyrs rather than save their lives by converting to Christianity. He claimed that this was revealed to him in heaven. Thus, martyrdom for even the minutae and external trappings of the Jewish faith is a dogma.

[mfbukowski]

Did I use the word objective? Either the Besht really taught a particular saying or he didn't. We may not be able to discern this for certain give the nature of our evidence, but there is an ontological reality here. And it is important.

Proving something to others have nothing to do with the ontological reality of a vision or not. Most things that happen can't be proven to have happened.

Well I wasn't going to comment on this but since volgadon did I guess I will as well

I really don't understand what you are saying at all. I really don't understand how something unknowable can have "ontological reality" especially when we are speaking of a person's opinion or teaching.

I also have trouble with the whole idea of an "onotological reality" of a vision. You mean he really saw what he says he saw- ie: he was not lying, or are you saying that what he saw was "real"?

So if he said he saw something and really saw what he said he saw and it was a hallucination, would that have ontological reality or not?

Or are you saying that what he saw was something "ontolgically real" even though no one can know if it was real or not?

As you can see, I am quite confused.

And then that last part- that most things can't be proven. Of course they can't.

But in what way is something "ontologically real" if no one knows if it happened or not and it has no consequence?

Suppose aliens landed at the North Pole on March 15th, 1864 and no one knows about it. Is such an alleged event "ontologically real?" Does the answer matter at all?

Now what if someone teaches that that happened? Is the teaching "ontologically real?"

I'm just not seeing why this has any practical importance I guess.

Edited September 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[DubaDNura]

I don't mean to hit-and-run. But every now and then I lurk here, and I noticed this thread. You could say that I'm uniquely qualified to comment here, despite never having read most of the books Prof. Hamblin and others have referred to. I've learned many of the books upon which those were based, however.

One of the difficulties in ascribing any specific saying to the Baal Shem Tov was that he did not write anything. Much was written that was later ascribed to him by his students. For example, the book Toldos Yaakov Yosef, by Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polonne, is a collection of d'rashos (that is, homiletic interpretations of the Torah) that are, in many ways, not terribly earth shattering They are beautiful, but not revolutionary. Periodically, however, her quotes the Besh''t.

Kesser Shem Tov ("Crown of [a] good name") and Tzava's HaRivash (an acronym for "The Ethical Will of the Rabbi, the Baal Shem") are collections of his saying from various places. There's another book called Sefer Baal Shem Tov, which claims to be a collection of his teachings.

But the greatest method of understanding his teaching is to learn the teachings of his followers. Prof. Hamblin makes a good point that it is not entirely fair to say that the actual teachings of the Besh't are not as important as the teachings about him. But as a practical matter, the impact of the Besh't on the world was was his creation of a new movement within the Jewish religion. To the extent that that movement claims to be based upon his teachings, his teachings live on in the movements he inspired. As another practical matter, each Chassidic branch seems to view the Besh't as the forebear of their Chassidic tradition. So its no surprise that each movement tends to paint a picture of him that fits with their unique Chassidic outlook.

With that in mind, I'll tackle the Wikipedia article, which seems to be based upon the books of a certain specific Chassidic sect.

He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Kabbalah by Mitnagdim, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which God reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God

Whoever does not believe that God resides in all things, but separates God and them in his thoughts, has not the right conception of God.

(wikipedia).

This is not a Mormon issue, but I was always a little frustrated to hear the explanation of the the Misnagdim's understanding of Kabbalah. Their understanding - according to the explanation of it offered by my Chassidic teachers - was so clearly heretical that they were obviously just fools and illiterates. Now I know that they were not fools and illiterates, so it stood to reason that either my understanding of Kabbalah was problematic (not a possibility I gave much thought to, admittedly), or that the explanation of their philosophy left something to be desired. Since then, I've learned significant parts of "their" explanation of Kabbalah. I've never seen any evidence of this idea that they believed that His emanations were distinct from Him.

Another source for the myth that the Besh''t taught the "novel concept" of "altz iz G-tt" (everything is G-d) is simple misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, of Lurianic Kabbalah. Very few of the teachings ascribed to the Besh''t were terribly novel. For example, the book that is called the foundational book of the Chabad branch of Chassidic Judaism (and, I suspect that the person who wrote the Wikipedia article was an adherent... in fact, I think I know the individual who wrote it), called Likutei Amarim (which just means, "A collection of sayings") is really just an explanation of R' Isaac Luria's teachings.

The novelty of the Besh''t was the approach to the teachings, which already existed. First of all, the Besh't brought Kabbalah front and center, and gave it a life and relevance for the laity. Second, the Besh''t integrated the understanding of the world derived from the Kabbalistic teachings into the understanding of the Talmud and Jewish law, so that one could not be fully understood without the other. Even this was really always the plan in the Lurianic teaching. Rabbi Chaim Vital, in his introduction to the foundational text Eitz Chaim ("Tree of Life"), the most comprehensive explanation of R' Isaac Luria's teaching - Luria was one of those masters who taught, instead of wrote... like the Besh''t, and like Socrates, for example - writes that people who do not learn Kabbalah see individual Jewish laws as distinct. His language was that they were like "droplets," that is, separate from the stream, and separate from one another. To the Kabbalist, the purpose of Jewish law was just to magnify G-d's name, and demonstrate his Oneness. In other words, a mature person understood G-d's Oneness, and therefore acted in a way that demonstrated it without having to be told at each junction where to go, and what to do.

In this respect, the Besh''t almost expects each person to ascribe to prophecy. The prophet understands G-d's relationship with the world, and therefore would no more violate Jewish law than he would violate the laws of gravity. If a person were to study Kabbalah, and live his life in a way of purity and kindess, he would develop the maturity necessary to have that kind of understanding. There's no book called "Being an adult, and not walking into traffic without looking before you cross." One does not have to read that sticking metal pieces into an electrical socket is dangerous once he's 24 years old, or so. Maturity cannot be learned in a book, but it takes a lifetime of reading to achieve it.

In this way, G-d really is invested in all things. For someone who diligently prays each morning, and who therefore meditates on his purpose in the world, the day does not bring a series of battles with the evil inclination (one of the names for the evil inclination, btw, is Satan). Instead, the day is a series of opportunities to do the right thing, and to magnify G-d's name.

I'm going to skip most of the quoted text, because I think I've dealt with it.

From the very beginning Besht fought against that contempt for the world which, through the influence of Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah, had almost become a dogma among the Jews.

I don't understand this line, and I don't think its accurate. He fought against contempt for the world, in that the world really G-d manifesting Himself as the world. But any view of the world that disconnects it from G-d was contemptible. So viewing a woman as an object of sexual desire is absolutely contemptible. Viewing one's wife as an extension of oneself, a partner in creation, etc. was very holy. Statements like this seem to come from a Christian worldview (and, I've noticed, not a very Mormon worldview), where sex and indulgence is a necessary evil. For Jews, and particularly for Kabbalists, all of these things can be extremely holy if one has the right perspective; and make no mistake about it, one's perspective will influence one's conduct. You don't get out of having to become a better person by just claiming to be a Kabbalist.

Here's another statement that's a little off, and could afford to be tweaked.

...he fought the rigidity and sanctimony that had accreted to strict Talmudic viewpoints while not abrogating a single religious ceremony or observance. His target was the great importance which the Talmudic view attaches to the fulfillment of a law, while almost entirely disregarding sentiment or the growth of man’s inner life.

(wikipedia)

The Talmud is still central in the Jewish cannon, amongst Chassidim. In fact, today, Chassidim are frequently accused of being too strict. But it is definitely true that one should learn the Talmud, and Jewish law, with an eye towards sanctifying G-d's name. Each mitzvah (commandment) isn't an end in itself. In fact, there truly is only one commandment. Moses first taught the Jewish people, when he stood on Mt. Sinai, "I am the Lord your G-d." In the Chassidic imagination, the Jews asked "so what does that mean for me?" Then Moses sighed and said, "for starters, it means that 'You shall have no other gods besides Me.'" And the Jews said "ok, but you're going to have to be more specific." So Moses said, "Ok guys, you'll understand this pretty soon. It really isn't a rule book. Being good is pretty simple. But if you need this broken into a bunch of little rules while you grow up and become adults, I'll help you out." And then he gave the rest of the 10 statements. After that, the Jews said "we're still going to need some help." So Moses said "its a good thing we have time, because if you guys are this dense, its going to take 613 commandments to teach you what G-d really wants out of you."

While the rabbis of his day considered the study of the Talmud as the most important religious activity, Besht laid all the stress on prayer. “All that I have achieved,” he once remarked, “I have achieved not through study, but through prayer”. Prayer, however, is not merely petitioning God to grant a request, nor even necessarily speaking to God, but rather (“cleaving”, dvekut)— the glorious feeling of ’Oneness with God Almighty’, the state of the soul wherein a man or woman gives up their consciousness of separate existence, and join their own selves to the Eternal Being of God Supreme. Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God.

(wikipedia)

This isn't incorrect. It just has to be read in conjunction with the above.

But my explanation of the Besh't, above, will probably be somewhat foreign to a Chassidic Jew from a Hungarian branch - like some of my very good friends, and mentors, who are Satmar Chassidim. For them, the Besh't taught a life of simple devotion, and stringent adherence to Jewish law. Try to talk to most of them about Sefer Eitz Chaim, and they'll look at you blankly. So we each sort of 'own' the Besh''t in our own way. Its hard to pin him down.

[volgadon]

I was hoping you'd pitch in. I think the Besht's biggest impact was creating an alternative to excessive asceticism and mortification which characterised most mystical piety before his teachings.

[DubaDNura]

As noble a sentiment as that is, an inherently green viewpoint actually has very little to do with Tikkun Olam. Tikkun Olam is a fundamental teaching of Lurianic Kabbalah, so I think we ought to be careful before jumping to the wiki's conclusions. Lurianic Kabbalah emphasised that something had gone disastrously wrong in the universe. I'll treat the idea simply. There was the breaking of the vessels, the forms which God created to hold his light were incapable of containing the light because of its intensity, and thus shattered. Then there was Adam's sin, which threw the world into disarray. So now, the holy is mixed with the impure, the good with the evil, truth with falsehood. There are generally beneficial deeds, especially in the ethical sphere, and there are also more specific theurgic operations, such as prayers with intent, or proper observation of ritual, and even deeds pertaining to unique situations.

For example, if you see a fish swimming in the river, and know that in it is trapped the soul of a man who never said the proper blessing over food, then you are to catch that fish and cook it, in order to say the proper blessing and repair the trapped soul. Once repaired, the soul is freed. Not what I would call a particularly green viewpoint.

I always type in green on this forum. Something has to be said for that.

The shattering of the vessels is the most commonly misunderstood concept in Luria's Kabbalah. And the misunderstanding of Shviras HaKeilim (shattering of the vessels) accounts for the problems in understanding the rest of Kabbalah that I regularly run into. This explanation is based upon the 45th chapter of a book called Sharei Hayichud (The Gates of Unity) by the second leader of the Chabad Chassidic movement. He analogizes shvirah to hearing someone speak a different language, or to hearing someone speak in your language about a topic that you don't understand. Not only will you not be able to understand what you're hearing, you won't even be able to remember it, because without some kind of a context for what you're hearing, the whole message gets lost. His actual example was someone hearing the Hebrew word Vayomer, but not knowing Hebrew. The listener would remember, perhaps, the sounds vahmah, but not the word Vayomer.

The trick is to learn G-d's language through a dedication to serve him, through intense purity, and through learning the Chassidic teachings.

Given that understanding, each moment is really a world of information that, if interpreted, will reveal G-d. So what do the Kabbalists teach about a moment? Well they teach that its made up of 4 worlds. (See, here's where the above understanding affects the rest of your understanding of Kabbalah. How many people think of the 4 worlds as somehow existing in ethereal space? In reality, they aren't separate and distinct from our everyday life, at all).

Asiyah - the World of Action. This is what is actually happening. Prof. Hamblin called this an ontological reality.

Yetzirah - The World of Formation. For those interested in Sefer Yetzirah, the Book of Formation, it is usually interpreted by Kabbalists as talking predominantly about this world. This is connected with the world of emotions. In other words, its the impact that ontological reality has on us.

Briyah - The World of Creation. This is connected with logic. This is our interpretation of ontological reality.

Atzilus - The World of Emanation. This is how the ontological reality was really G-d's choice, or, more personally, how it resonates with our essence.

Finally, above all worlds, and transcending them, is the Ancient of Days (Atik Yomin) sometimes just called Kesser (the Crown), which is G-d's ultimate desire. It comes into every level, so to speak. So its relationship with Asiyah is that its how the ontological reality, the final result, fulfilled G-d's true desire.

Obviously, much of the above is very personal. One's perception of ontological reality affects his ability to see how it fits into G-d's plan. Therefore, much of the emphasis in Kabbalistic learning is to change a person's perspective. That is, to teach him the language G-d "speaks" in the allegory I brought at the beginning of this post.

Edited September 14, 2012 by DubaDNura

[DubaDNura]

I was hoping you'd pitch in. I think the Besht's biggest impact was creating an alternative to excessive asceticism and mortification which characterised most mystical piety before his teachings.

To the extent that oversimplifications can be accurate, this one is.

[volgadon]

To the extent that oversimplifications can be accurate, this one is.

Thanks. I always feel a twinge of guilt when I generalise.