Q&A: Tzimtzum Not in Its Literal Sense — Division in Consciousness
Tzimtzum Not in Its Literal Sense — Division in Consciousness
Question
Hello and blessings, a0
First of all, I wanted to note that I very much enjoy the Rabbi’s lecture series, most of which are like cold water to a weary soul, even for someone who has read the trilogy. a0
Regarding the lecture series on “The Holy One, Blessed be He, and the World — Tzimtzum and Providence” — as I understand it, the Rabbi’s main problem with the non-literal conception of tzimtzum is the question of what it means for the Holy One, Blessed be He, to present a parable to Himself, to speak with Himself, what the meaning of the parable is, and the fact that the Rabbi does not accept the possibility of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as divided into several consciousnesses.
Despite the above reservation, which I accept and understand, we do find several similar divisions regarding which I have not heard the Rabbi object — the division of the soul into nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, and yechidah; Maimonides’ parts of the soul; the duality of body and soul (when the brain and consciousness are on some level located in the body); and more. Does the Rabbi reject the possibility of different levels of consciousness in the above divisions? After all, one can speak meaningfully (= not nonsense) about the speaking part and the aroused part as carrying on a “dialogue” within a person’s soul. Does the Rabbi reject such possibilities as well and classify them too as nonsense? a0
Answer
Absolutely not. Are there no objects that are divided into different parts?! A table is divided into legs and a top. Our soul is divided into intellect, will, emotion, memory, and more.
But the claim that the Holy One, Blessed be He, speaks with Himself is nonsense, and I raised other problematic aspects too, for example: what is the referent of this parable? Is it really the case that nothing was created? What is the purpose of the parable? After all, if the Holy One, Blessed be He, speaks with Himself, then He knows everything.
As I said, I see no point in dwelling on meaningless words of this sort. For me, it’s really embarrassing.
Discussion on Answer
The parts of your soul do not speak to one another. Otherwise these would be different persons, not parts of the same person. If you are a polytheist, then of course the situation is different. But that’s it; with respect, I’ve exhausted this.
With respect, I didn’t understand the answer. And when the different parts of my soul speak with each other, is that not nonsense? The question of the meaning of the parable and whether things were really created is a different question; right now I’m trying to address only the problem of a consciousness speaking “to itself.”
A table is divided into legs and a top, but they do not speak to one another. By contrast, my soul is divided into parts that do have some kind of relations between them and, on some level, a dialogue. Can’t one say the same thing about the Holy One, Blessed be He — that He is divided into different parts (Arikh Anpin, created beings, etc.) that speak with one another?