Q&A: Transcendence and Immanence
Transcendence and Immanence
Question
With God's help,
Hello Rabbi. In Kabbalistic teaching there are two conceptions regarding the Holy One, blessed be He, or the vitality of the worlds. One is the conception of "that which encompasses all worlds," which is seemingly the transcendent conception, and the other is the conception of "that which fills all worlds," which is seemingly an immanent conception. Although on the face of it there is a contradiction between the two conceptions, in Chabad it is customary to explain that the encompassing light creates and brings into being ex nihilo the very physical reality, or the physical human being, while the filling light creates his qualities and his particular life-force. I wanted to ask whether the conception of the human being as something that is not merely the sum total of his thoughts and psychological traits is relevant here. Can he be conceived as a physical entity, and do we have any ability at all to apprehend physical things? (Something like Descartes' problem of the melted wax.) I know that the Rabbi tends to say that he does not deal with hidden matters, but from the Rabbi's previous answers it actually seems that the Rabbi does have some kind of engagement with these issues, and therefore I allowed myself to ask the Rabbi.
Many thanks.
Answer
Hello.
Indeed I have dealt with this (with Kabbalah, not Hasidism), and when I said that I have no dealings with hidden matters, I meant that I do not know how to answer what is correct and what is incorrect regarding mysticism (such as an evil spirit and the like).
I do not see any contradiction at all. The filling and the encompassing (the transcendent and the immanent) are two aspects of God and His relation to the world. This is not a description of Him Himself. True, some kabbalists held that the Infinite Light is the essence itself (if I remember correctly, in the early Shomer Emunim), but that is a very problematic view (and Leshem already discussed this at length).
By the way, what you cited in the name of Chabad is not an explanation, of course, because if these are descriptions of Him Himself then there is a contradiction, and if they are metaphors or descriptions of His relation to the world then there is no contradiction to begin with and no explanation is needed. You can of course propose an interpretation of "filling" and "encompassing," but only on the merits of the matter itself, not as an explanation of this difficulty.
I did not understand your question about conceiving the human being as a physical entity. Do you think he is not a physical entity? Was it for nothing that the embalmers embalmed? It is obviously not the case that a person is only the sum total of his thoughts, for there must be someone whose thoughts these are. Otherwise, why not combine your first three thoughts with my last 17 and define them as a certain person (Yankeleh)? See my fuller discussion of this in the second section of Two Carts.
Just as pantheism, which identifies God with the totality of creation, is nonsense or merely semantic mindless chatter. And likewise the Chabad mindless chatter about contraction not being literal is nonsense, for the same reason: if man does not really exist, then it is not clear who is the one in whom the illusion of contraction is created (to whom is this parable being said?).
Bottom line: these are vague and pointless ideas. I do not see any point in dealing with them.
Discussion on Answer
As I understand it, they do claim that. According to their approach, only the Creator truly exists and everything else is an illusion of contraction not being literal. Their premise is that nothing has any existence apart from the Creator, and if He fills everything then there is nothing besides Him. If He was not contracted, then where are we and who are we?
Why is the Chabad view of contraction not being literal mindless chatter? As far as I know, they do not claim that man does not exist, only that the Creator is concealed and did not depart.