Q&A: Panentheism
Panentheism
Question
Hello Honorable Rabbi,
This is regarding panentheism (not pantheism).
One of the reasons the Rabbi calls pantheism “nonsense” is that it is semantically no different from atheism. Indeed, there is no real difference. The Rabbi calls panentheism that as well, and it is not clear why.
Unlike pantheism, panentheism represents an infinite divinity, where nature is only one dimension of it. Very different from pantheism/atheism.
What it means for us:
A. Everything is unified.
B. There is something “above nature.” Nature is the screen we know, but it conceals the rest.
The other screens (“spiritual screens”) are the roots of the finite branch — “nature.”
What does this actually mean?
Suppose the distancing of the Jewish people from its God reaches a peak in the middle of the 20th century, through assimilation or secularism or Zionism outside a religious framework of faith (so it turns out that both the religious and the Haredim are right, as an explanation for the Holocaust).
The Rabbi offers alternatives in his book:
1. The “thin” view — there is no divine intervention at all. The Nazis chose on their own to be cruel, and the Jews were unlucky.
2. A “classical religious” view — the Holy One, blessed be He, leads history through all these events.
3. Another religious view — the Holy One, blessed be He, does intervene and guide history, but in the Holocaust there was a specific “hiding of the face.”
The panentheist can propose:
There is Infinite Light (a divine abundance that is wholly good, flooding all of reality). In this world, that abundance is expressed, for example, in the oxygen molecules we breathe. If we pollute the earth, we will not breathe the divine oxygen.
Just as there are laws of nature (physical laws), so too there are “spiritual-unitive” laws, which, as stated, are the roots of the laws of nature (the laws of nature are subordinate to them). When the Jewish people distance themselves from the Infinite Light (which part of their purpose is specifically to attain and reveal), the spiritual laws cause nature to act against the Jewish people (nature, as stated, is a branch of the spiritual laws).
How would this be expressed, say, in the Holocaust?
The Jewish people, who are supposed to lead creation toward closeness to its God, instead distance themselves from Him; the spiritual laws cause the cruel nature of the Germans to erupt within them. That is, in terms of nature, the German mind clings to completely natural-animalistic behavior, behind which stand theories like “survival of the fittest,” etc.
This is exactly reflected in the expression “Israel among the nations is like the heart among the limbs.” When there is a problem in the flow of blood in the heart, it will have an effect on the “limb” represented by Germany.
In a “pantheistic” (atheistic) world, by contrast, there should not be a “spiritual” influence between two extremes (say, a Jew and a German), because everything is only physical nature.
Questions that may come up:
1. So did the Germans basically not have free choice?
It could be that there was a space for choice, but God (through the Jews and their behavior) hardened their hearts.
Just as it is hard to accuse soldiers who killed prisoners of the other side of “murder.” Did they have free choice? Yes, but presumably their hearts had already inclined in the direction of choosing to kill the prisoners, because of the mental state they were in during wartime (to the best of my knowledge this also happened to IDF soldiers during some of Israel’s wars).
2. So is God basically “Infinite Light” or an “infinite system”?
Not really.
The conception of the Creator divides in two:
A. The luminary (as the Rabbi described in his book based on the Lubavitcher Rebbe). This is God Himself — “the essence of the Creator,” of whom it is said: “No thought can grasp You at all.” We have no idea what this is, nor can we grasp it at all. Moreover, apparently one should not deal with this at all.
B. The light (“Infinite Light”) — the divine abundance that is wholly good, and it composes all the worlds, the last of which is our nature; and when we attain it (apparently with a certain space for free choice), then we are in the optimal state. And this is really the whole essence of our life — to chase after the Infinite Light (a journey that never ends :)) — to know God.
3. Where does individual providence fit into all this?
Because everything is unified, just as Israel among the nations is “like the heart among the limbs,” so too the Jews are all in the same boat. If the spiritual attachment of the Jewish people to the Infinite Light is in bad shape, that harms everyone.
Exactly like when in the army equipment is stolen because one soldier messed up, and the whole platoon is punished (and rightly so).
Best regards,
Answer
My feeling is that panentheism, which says that everything is in God and not that everything is God, is merely wordplay. It is not nonsense in the sense of a contradiction, but in the sense of statements that are undefined. What does it mean that everything is in God? That we ourselves are divinity? That is outright idolatry. It also follows from this that He is composite and not simple, and that certainly does not fit the accepted conceptions of Him (though I do not feel bound by them). Bottom line, I do not see any defined difference between these statements and the statement that we are separate from Him.
All the rest is too long to address in detail. In general, I do not see in your remarks anything that is a result of panentheism, and some of the things are not clear to me at all.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, these are statements with no clear meaning. To be located inside a house is a banal description, and in that sense one can speak of our being inside the Holy One, blessed be He, in some sense (to the extent that He exists in space, or in some borrowed sense), but this has no concrete content. One can say this simple and vague statement even without getting muddled up with concepts like panentheism.
Your analogy about a situation in which only the building exists and I am inside it simply begs the question. I call such a situation one in which not only the building exists, but I do too. If you call that a situation in which only the building exists, then you assumed something from the outset. Such talk has no point.
Lights and lamps also do not sound any more understandable or clear to me. These are forms of speech with no concrete content, and so I see no point in engaging with them.
It seems to me that the Rabbi is dismissive of this very good question and is being intellectually lazy under the pretext that the question itself lacks depth
Hello,
“Everything is in divinity” —
Suppose all that exists is a building and me. If I say a sentence like “I am inside the building,” does that make sense? In my opinion yes (I’d be happy if the Honorable Rabbi would write if he thinks otherwise).
Does that mean the building is me? In my opinion no.
Does that mean I am the building? Also no.
Besides that, we are all part of the Infinite Light, but there is also a divine part (“the luminary” in the writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe), which is external to us. That is, Judaism is a combination of panentheism and monotheism.
Besides that, I’d be glad if the Honorable Rabbi sees fit to ask anything further.
Just to clarify — “luminary” — the essence of the Creator.
“Infinite Light” — the infinite abundance that He emits.
You can think of it exactly like a lamp in our room.
We are all part of the divine light, and not of the luminary itself.
Best regards,