On the value of religious experience
Hello, I have a question about religious experience.
Let me start by saying that I’m not talking about an experience as a human need in which he sees an experience in religion, as a personal need. It’s really worthless to me. Just satisfying needs.
I’m talking about developing a religious experience as a kind of halakhic command. That is, here are two Jews who observe a minor as well as a major part of halakhic law. But the first Jew observes only as an order. He has no sense of devotion. He has no identification. He does it only as a soldier.
On the other hand, the second person, in addition to being a soldier, has an additional second layer in which observance of Halacha is done out of identification, out of devotion to God, and out of religious experience.
Now which of the two people is more complete, or even more religiously ideal? I think you agree here that the second person is greater, that the experience for him begins in reality and not just on the Internet.
Now I will present my simple question: Why? Why is the other person really perceived by us as more complete and religious? It seems to me that this can be answered in two ways:
First, the attachment to God itself is a kind of halakhic clause. That is, there is a commandment to love God, and the second person’s love is apparently stronger and more powerful. According to this answer, the second advantage over the first is confirmed in the field of halakhic law. Love has no limit, and the more you love God, the more you fulfill the halakhic law.
But perhaps we can answer, beyond that, even if we assume that both people go out in the commandment of loving God to the same extent (according to the halacha). There is still an advantage in the second over the first. Why? Because he is more connected to God. True, this is not halacha. It is simply self-evident. Of course, the one whose entire life is directed around the Creator is more exalted. This is a simple explanation.
I hope I was able to explain my thoughts on this. I would love to hear your opinion. And I would appreciate it if you could expand a little on what you think about this.
Thanks for everything!
I think you managed to explain. But the discussion doesn’t start because I don’t agree with the starting point. The second is not necessarily greater.
Wow, that's quite a novelty. I think there's a convention that the second is greater, it's pretty much an axiomatic assumption (I think the concept of 'righteous' was perceived that way in Jewish history). Either way, have you written about this before? I think it's a very important element, and it's worth expanding on.
I definitely wrote. In replies and also columns. You can search the site. There was a column dedicated to the experience not long ago, and in the past I also dealt with the Brisk experience.
Let's ask it differently:
In the parable of the child who asks for forgiveness only because of his intellect versus the other child who asks only because of his emotions, it is clear that the former prevails. But if one asks for forgiveness both because of his emotions and because of his intellect, is he no longer "complete" in what sense? There is some intuition that there is value in this completeness.
And if these things are true, is a person who is "complete" in his love for God, even from the experiential side, not more worthy of appreciation? You can divide and say that the Torah does not have such an intuition (unlike the child), or say that you do not see value in the child either, or accept that there is indeed such a value.
I will read the columns again, but I do not remember that you really addressed this question. And you explained your opinion
To me, it doesn't seem complete anymore. But in a healthy person, the existence of emotion expresses a greater internalization of the mind, meaning that emotion is a sign and not a cause. But if there is a person in whom the emotional dimension does not exist but is not developed, then this expression will not arise in him, and there is no defect in that.
Well, interesting. I think this is one of the stones of Hasidic-Lithuanian contention.
In the Hasidic view, there is value in even emotion being drawn in favor of the divine idea. Indeed, not as the wrong-doers think, that it is because emotion is a measure or worth something, here you are right that emotion is not a value (as you wrote in the columns for fatigue). The assumption is that there is value in bringing God everywhere in the world. If you will: ‘making an apartment for Him in your underwear’. In the Hasidic view, there is value in divine truth penetrating emotion as well. This is a law of truth, not a law of emotion.
Indeed, it seems that the Lithuanian view does not see value in this. A person must observe the halacha and meditate on the Torah, nothing more. There is no point in bringing God into every hole. And you, as a staunch Lithuanian, are of your opinion…
Well, interesting.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
