Q&A: Rabbi Kook and Haredi Neo-Paganism
Rabbi Kook and Haredi Neo-Paganism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In my humble opinion, it is obvious that Rabbi Kook saw the imaginative faculty as a basis for prophecy only when it can connect to repentance, and not when it stands in contradiction. I mean to say a “neutral imaginative faculty,” as opposed to any imagination with a predefined negative orientation. Thus his words:
“There are qualities in imagination that do not exist in intellect. Imagination animates the world within us in its spiritual form, and thereby makes our spiritual essence more complete; except that when it grows too strong, it blurs the character of the practical world.” (Orot HaKodesh I, “The Higher Imagination,” 52) “As long as one is engaged in Torah and wisdom, acts of kindness and the building of the world, love of people and proper conduct, there is no need to fear any eruption of imaginings.” (ibid., 58)
“And the cure for a world that has become deeply submerged in imagination because of its shadowy side is not the weakening of imagination, nor the strengthening of intellect alone, for in the end it too is limited, but rather repentance to the supreme source” (Orot HaKodesh I, 38) “Do not take lightly the development of the imaginative faculty, its power and refinement, when it is bound up with holiness and purity, for it is the throne upon which the light of wisdom and the higher life rests” (ibid., 231)
It does not seem to me that Rabbi Kook was praising phenomena of Haredi neo-paganism…
(Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Uman, Bartenura, King David, etc.)
Is that indeed the correct understanding of Rabbi Kook’s words???
With blessings of Torah
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. Our correspondence takes place at long intervals (and not even as a continuation of the previous exchange, so I can’t even see what this is about), and I no longer remember what the issue was. What are the two possibilities in understanding Rabbi Kook’s approach, and which one are you arguing for? What exactly is this about?
Discussion on Answer
It’s hard for me to comment on what Rabbi Feuerstein said, since I didn’t hear it. I also don’t really see the point of asking what Rabbi Kook meant and what he would have said about this or that phenomenon. My personal opinion is that this is meaningless nonsense. A bunch of excited fools looking for experiences and thrills produced by their own imagination. And that is so whether Rabbi Kook meant this or not. Calling hallucinations “the imaginative faculty” or any other name does not change the fact that they are hallucinations.
With forgiveness from your honored Torah for the poor wording,
My question is not a continuation of a previous correspondence, and sorry for the misunderstanding.
On Shavuot night I attended a lecture by Rabbi Rafi Feuerstein, in which he praised the phenomenon of Uman and the like, and based his remarks on Rabbi Kook regarding the “imaginative faculty.” Rabbi Rafi argued that even a phenomenon like Uman can serve as preparation for prophecy, since it encourages the “imaginative faculty,” which is the basis for the renewal of prophecy, following Rabbi Kook.
My claim is that Rabbi Kook was speaking about imagination that does not contradict the Torah (for after all, one can see it in every form of idolatry), but rather about imagination that reflects values that do not contradict the Torah, even if the way they are realized does contradict it, such as communism.
The clear direction in Rabbi Kook’s words is “repentance to the supreme source,” not sinking into fantasies.
As I understand the spirit of Haredi neo-paganism, it seems clear that the trend is to make imagination rule over intellect, contrary to Rabbi Kook’s words, which require cooperation between them: “And the cure for a world that has become deeply submerged in imagination because of its shadowy side is not the weakening of imagination, nor the strengthening of intellect alone, for in the end it too is limited.”
Am I mistaken in my analysis of the ideal and the actual? Is the phenomenon of Haredi neo-paganism not negative both ideally and after the fact?
With blessings