Cristina Ciucu
University of Bucharest / Université Lyon 3 et INALCO, Paris
Neo-Platonism and the Cabalistic Structure of the Divine Emanation
Abstract: The present paper attempts to shatter the widely disseminated idea that the Cabalistic system of the divine emanation is merely a variant of the Neo-Platonic system of emanation, permeated with Gnostic elements. By means of an analysis of a few texts belonging to the theosophical Cabala, I point out briefly to what extent the Cabalistic sephirotic structure is represented rather as a center-less, source-less configuration, and to what extent the Urgrund is really an Ungrund. This implies, and it is implied by a particular and assumed conception of the divine reality (the sephirot) as being a projected and adjustable structure, by a tensional, yet non-dialectic, rapport between being (yesh) and non-being (ayn), as well as by a different outlook on the conception of creatio ex nihilo (yesh meayn).
Keywords: Kabala; Neoplatonism; sephirot; Azriel de Gerona; Nachmanides.
One of the commonplaces disseminated also at a certain extent by Gershom Scholem is that the cabalistic emanative structure is a version of the Neo-Platonic scheme on which the Gnostic mythology and metaphysics laid their imprint. The aim of this article is to trace a very general picture of the cabalistic (theosophical) ontology and emanative configuration and to highlight thereby some essential differences between the latter and the Neo-Platonic scheme.
The wide influence and sway of the Neo-Platonism in the early Middle Ages is beyond dispute. Its heno-theology and “doubly transcendent” Oneness, identified with the Agathon and placed – as in the Platonic ontological hierarchy – beyond Being and Intelligibility[1] provided the basis for the early Christian and later Medieval tradition of the apophasis. Its intermediary hierarchy and procession from One to multiplicity and its intimation of a structure of the divine world offered the conceptual instruments and terminology for a whole Hermetic and Gnostic tradition. The revival of Neo-Platonism in the theosophical system of Avicenna – with its intermediary hierarchy, continuity and conductibility allowing the access, through the contemplative intellect, to the divine world – had a tremendous importance as to the later development of Sufi and Shiite traditions.[2]
Unquestionably, Neo-Platonism did play an important role in the formation of some of the central Cabalistic conceptions: the intermediary worlds and the seemingly continuous structure of emanation, the hierarchical construction of the divine world, the divine origins transcending being, intelligibility and rational discourse, the problem of ineffability and of the status of the mystical approach. Yet, some major differences lying at the core of the two systems prevent us from labeling the cabalistic (theosophical) structure of emanation as “Neo-Platonic”. We shall analyze briefly two of the major interrelated themes common to the Neo-Platonic and cabalistic thinking, emphasizing the specific and major differences of the latter in its general bearings and mystic conceptions: the major ontological problem of the generation or procession of being from the divine pre-ontological source and that of the general structure of this procession, i.e. the sefirotic configuration.
In the Platonic ontology, the First Principle is the One, whereas Being is defined as a derived notion, a mixed genre (one and multiple, identity and difference, limit and infinite)[3] . In the Plotinian system as well, the One transcends being and intelligibility: it is not itself Being but it generates Being, which in its turn generates the hypostasis of Intelligence in its act of turning towards and contemplating the One. Each one is unmoved in the generative process[4]. Thus, in the Plotinian – and later Proclusian – scheme, the causation has a triple structure: every effect remains in its cause (menein), proceeds from it (proienein) and reverts upon it (epistrophein)[5]. The epistrophein follows the guiding and unifying path of the Nous, but the end of the ascension is the final and complete (for Plotinus and only partial for later Neo-Platonist, starting with Iamblichus) henosis, the passage beyond being and beyond the duality implied in any cognitive process: a self-annihilation in the hyper-substantial divinity. I shall try to point out that for some of the medieval (mainly 13th century Spanish) cabalists the goal of the mystical experience/knowledge is not the unification with the divinity, but a possible unification of the divine structures through the unification and harmonization of the mystical perception.
As Shaul Magid pointed out in a subtle analysis of the notion of tsimtsum, the cabalistic mystical approach could be generally defined as a movement from the beginning (genesis, Enstehung) to the origins (Ursprung) of the God who creates[6]. Nevertheless, this movement is not the equivalent of a revelation of the hidden origin, nor of a process of revelation of the very concealment of the divine roots or manifestation, as in the Sufi mystical exercises.[7] The first movement of this process is the emanation of a divine structure, the sefirot, a process taking place inside the Godhead, within the divine essence, unlike the Creation which is both a cosmic and a temporal process. From the first “mystical” text of the Sefer Yetsira (third-sixth century) to the commentaries of the first cabalists of Provence and Gerona and the later developments, the first step in the mystical reconstruction of the origins is the positing of a primordial ‘Ayn (lack, non-space, nothingness) or ‘Eyn Sof. The beginning is thus retraced starting from the hypothesis of a ‘lack’ of beginning, of an origin postulated as the impossible, the inconceivable. The ‘Ayn of the Sefer Yetsira[8] and the later notion of ‘Eyn Sof (“There is no end, there is no origin”[9]) do not stand for a transcendent, hidden God, but represent rather the utmost cognitive limit and a kind of principle of indetermination of the sefirotic structure. Representing the ‘supreme’ transcendent instance, ‘Eyn Sof is often completely excluded from the actual emanative configuration or “world of emanation”.
Thus, for instance, the commentaries of Pseudo-Rabad and Nahmanides to the Sefer Yetsira mention only Keter `Elyon (the Superior Crown), the first of the sefirot, as the beginning, the source of emanation. But even this first sefira is not a part of the emanative process, it is not yet a “beginning”. ‘Ayn or Keter `Elyon is the source of Hokhmah (“Wisdom” or the “Beginning”), the primordial and as yet ungraspable (since not yet fully manifested) structure, that which emerges out of non-being[10]. Nevertheless, if this first sefirah and emanator is not in itself a part of the structure, is it not simply beyond it either, as a kind of transcendent generative matrix. It stands for the paradox implied in the notion of beginning: it is both an identifiable inception point of a process and an elusive – yet formative – presence throughout the process. As pure hesed (i.e. divine affection as complete fusion and annulment of distinctions), Keter is beyond ‘return’, that is excluded from the complex web of interactions among the sefirot and between the world of emanation and the lower worlds. The point of “return” is represented then by the third sefirah, Bynah – the origins of distinctions, the limitative principle – and sometimes even by the firth sefirah Din or Gevura, the “Stern Judgment” (already defined as such by R. Isaac Sagi Nahor)[11]. Thus, Bynah closes up the circle[12] and marks the upper limit of the sefirotic configuration: for many representatives of the theosophical Cabala there is no possible return to ‘Ayn (Keter) and a fortiori to ‘Eyn Sof itself.
Moreover, an idea which Moshe Idel traces back to the first cabalists of Provence and Gerona[13], that of the sefirot above the “known” configuration of the sefirot, of higher and more indeterminate structures of emanation, turns the highest sefirah (Keter – ‘Ayin ) into the lowest sefirah of yet another set of entirely elusive configurations: “The one who was called the high one above the high ones is not the high above the high and this mystery was not revealed to all wise men and prophets.”[14] The gap between the object of the mystical discourse and the unknowable divinity is thus further widened, making the establishment of an origin point impossible. In other words, the place of the One in the Neo-Platonic mystical theology is taken in the cabalistic theosophical tradition by a notion standing for the complete non-determination, aperture and lack of arché. It is a notion eluding any generative scheme and by means of which the affirmation “there is no origin” becomes metaphysically and logically maintainable.[15]
Without adhering to the Heideggerian ontological implications of his analysis of origins (Anfang) as rendered invisible by the beginning (Beginn), we cannot but subscribe to the conclusion drawn by Elliot R. Wolfson in a remarkable study: “Before `alef[16] comes beit[17] – in a nutshell, the wisdom of the Kabbalah.”[18] The origin is thus endlessly deferred: it is not the equivalent of an Ursprung, continuously manifested and hidden at the same time, determining the nature of a thing and making its becoming possible. ‘Ayn or “Non-Being” becomes a name for a groundless structure. The beginning of the emanative configuration alludes to an abyssal precedence, to an origin which is absolute indeterminacy or, to put it better, which is not (‘eyn). This conception imposes a re-analysis and redefinition of the main ontological tenets of the theosophical Cabala: the ontological status of the sefirot and of the emanator, the emanation ex niholo and implicitly the whole question of the origins of God and of the creation.
Thus, in the attempt to translate the tension between non-being and being at the level of the first two sefirot, Nachmanides recurs to an ancient Parmenidian equivalence between being and thinking. Being – Nachmanides intimates – is not a status, but a degree of thinking and intelligibility, that is of manifestation:
“The difference between the principle/measure ( midah) of ‘Ayin and that of Yesh is that the ‘Ayin is hidden (ne`edar-“in dis-appearance”) from thinking (hasagah) and in the Yesh there is a little (qәtsat) thinking and thus it (being) is the first born (behor) of thinking […].”[19]
In “being” (which the sefirah Hokhmah stands for) there is “some” thinking and intelligibility, that is to say that being is not as yet complete intelligibility. It is a golem (“amorphous entity”), without form (tsura) and determinations[20]. Its coherence comes from ‘Ayn (“non-being”, the first sefirah), which is both the absolute indeterminateness and the source of determination. This is not as a mere ‘mystical paradox’, but a means of expressing a fundamental ontological tension: non-being (or the indeterminate and undeterminable) and being (yesh) are – I shall say for lack of a proper term – consubstantial. The intelligibility of being comes only from and through non-being, hence the explanation of the first generation of yesh (Hokhmah) from ‘Ayn with R. Azriel of Gerona, one of the most original and abstruse 13th century Spanish cabalists. Redefining the concept of creatio ex nihilo, a later entrance via Christian philosophy into Jewish mystical and philosophical tradition,[21] R. Azriel presents the whole problematic of being emerging or being “created” out of non-being as an ontological misunderstanding:
If they ask you, how did he pull his being out of nothingness (yesh mә’ayn), since there is a big difference (hefresh gadol) between being and nothingness? Answer: for Him who made his being come out of nothingness this implies no deficiency (heser), because being is in non-being in the manner of non-being and non-being is in being in the manner of being. (…) Sefer Yetsirah reads: ‘He made his non-being [be] his being’ (`asah ‘eyno yeshno), it does not read: ‘He made being out of non-being’. And this in order to teach us that non-being is being and that being is non-being. Or, non-being is called believer (‘aman). But the place of junction (hibur) [between being and non-being], [the point] where being starts to emerge out of non-being is called faith (’emunah). Because faith relates [linguistically] neither to a visible and graspable being (yesh ha-nir’eh veha-nitpas) nor to an invisible and non graspable non-being, but to the place where non-being is in contact (‘adiqut) with being. Therefore being does not emerge alone out of non-being. Being and non-being together represent the issue of “being [created] out of non-being”. Being is non-being”[22].
‘Emunah – Hokhmah, the junction point wherefrom being emerges out of non-being is also the ultimate source of both faith and disbelief: “the path of faith and the path of disbelief are equivalent in the place (maqom) of junction/attachment (‘adiqut) of his non-being to his being”[23]. In this dialectical non-binary understanding of the question of emanatio ex nihilo, being is not the negation of non-being, but its tacit affirmation and a continual allusion to origins. Non-being, in its turn, stands both for the unsurpassable origin and for that which makes possible the “presence” of the “present” being, manifestation and intelligibility. It is therefore absurd to describe the processes of emanation and creation as a generation of being from a precedent, primordial non-being. Being and non-being represent inextricable aspects of the same ontological ‘state’ – or rather process. In this sense, faith (’emunah) and disbelief (khәfirah) are two complementary forms of mystical knowledge which make manifest the ontological “junction-point”, the fleeting moment when non-being is graspable in the manifestation of being, an indefinable allusion to the origins and the only way to conceive it. Like being and non-being, faith and disbelief should be thought of in terms of meaning-producing tension rather than in terms of binary opposition.
Plato himself had solved the problem of the Eleatic logic by asserting that the term ”non-being” could play a role in a negative predication, signifying otherness. Since otherness is logically defined as a category of the multiple, pertaining to the conceptual sphere of non-being, the immediate implication for the Neo-platonic system of emanation is that the procession from the One to multiplicity can be represented as a gradual transformation in favor of otherness or as a transformation into matter, which is a form of “non-being”.[24] A non-being which is yet the logical opposite of the Non-Being of the One, which could be rather defined as a trans-being, hyper-ousia, or as an absolutely undetermined ontological status. In the theosophical cabalistic tradition, this Non-Being (of the absolute origins and of the mystical ontological intuition) is not conceived in terms of otherness, but rather in terms of an internal tension of being rendered intelligible in the process of becoming. Not only the supreme Non-Being (‘Ayn), but also the common notion of non-being represent “the supreme level of the entire ontological hierarchy”[25]. Therefore, man has to bless God “for the Creation, for its non-being and for its perfection, for its accomplishment and for its mutations.”[26] Non-being is the co-essence of being, its generator of intelligibility and maybe, according to a famous and obscure passage by the 14th century Spanish cabalist Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi, the abyss which creates the seeming homogeneity of being:
“In every transformation of reality, in every change of form, or every time the status of a thing is altered, the abyss of nothingness is crossed and becomes visible for a fleeting moment”[27].
For the world of the emanation (‘atsilut), the indeterminacy of the first principle (‘Ayn-Keter) – the denial of identifiable origins – entails the indeterminacy of the whole sefirotic configuration. Nachmanides explains in these terms the etymology of the much disputed term blymah in his commentary to the Sefer Yetsirah :
”Ten sefiroth without essence/indefinable (blymah): since they represent the aperture of ‘Eyn Sof, which is beyond investigation, does not have a determination (or essence: mahut) and is blymah, they are called blymah“[28].
The impossibility of grasping the divine – albeit in a trans-rational, trans-intellectual way – lies at the basis of this open and non-centered configuration[29]. The divine origins and the origins/essence of the Intelligible share the same incomprehensibility due to their very co-original character. Thus, according to Moshe de Leon`s definition of both knowledge and the mystical approach, the unknowable is the principle and the primum movens of all form of knowledge:
“There is no cognition which does not have as an object (tluyah `al) a thing hidden (nistar) and incomprehensible (ne`elam)[30] “.
The incognoscible is the origins of the cognoscible and all knowledge is based on the admission of a ‘principle of indetermination’, which the notion of ‘Eyn Sof stands for. The sefirotic configuration can be therefore understood as the mystical and symbolical representation of the cognitive process in general, which consists in grasping the immediate through the transcendent and the intelligible through the unintelligible. The very coherence of this configuration is made possible by postulating an element of transcendence, eluding the manifested configuration and exerting no formative action or control upon it. As Charles Mopsik magnificently pointed out, ‘Eyn Sof translates: there is no control, no supreme instance[31]: it is a construction without an end and without a beginning, without a volitional agent or a central ‘authority’.
The functional and structuring principle of the sefirotic configuration is sexual differentiation; the process of emanation is made possible by the pairs of sefirotic syzigies, the blueprint of manifestation and creation that is already present in the bosom of the undifferentiated origins[32]. Along these lines, otherness and plurality precede unity and multiplicity becomes the fundamental ontological principle. The purpose of the mystical process and of the divine self-revelation is not the henosis but rather the harmonization of this multiple primeval configuration, of the net of bonds within the world of emanation as well as between the world of emanation and the lower worlds. The henosis – which would translate as the return of the sefirotic complex to the absolute indeterminacy of ‘Eyn Sof – represents in this theosophical frame of reference a genuine failure of the emanative and creative processes. The ascension to Eyn Sof is the negative result of human erring and of the disharmony thereby created within the net of bonds and syzygies which make any manifestation possible[33].
This presupposes that human rapport to the divine configurations does not consist in the ascension to the supreme origins (inaccessible and posited only in terms of absolute transcendence), but in establishing the right relationships, connections and bonds within the multiple divine manifestation. As a projection of intelligibility and order (a human projection), the sefirotic configuration is the result of an ontological (as well as pre-ontological) discontinuity. The actual structure of the divine world – and implicitly of the entire existence – is discontinuous: the creation as well as the origins (of the creative divinity) lack harmony and balance – an idea which becomes central in the Lurianic Cabala. The primordial form of divine revelation is the excess, the disorder, the disequilibrium. Order and intelligibility could be seen as a human projection ensuring the continuity and the endurance of the creation and of the manifested divinity itself.
Accordingly, the divine configuration is rather a human projection and an ‘ideal’ configuration than a revealed metaphysical reality. The sefirotic harmony is a mystical ideal and the goal of the mystical activity (interpretation, meditation, prayer, intention etc.). The theosophical cabalistic approach could thus be defined as theomorphic, in the original sense of morphe – that of change, transformation – , a formatio dei, as an objective genitive. Man`s mystical ‘duty’ would be that of projecting harmony on a deficient and unstable configuration; it consists in an incessant effort to construct a coherent and equilibrated emanative scheme as well as to watch upon and sustain an extremely fragile construction.
In as much as the sefirotic structure is not a self-adjusting system, it is unable of safeguarding its own integrity and equilibrium. And because it does not have o control-center, it is, in a way, vulnerable. This explains as well the unprecedented fear of the magical activities and of the dangers they represent for the divine structure itself. Since the theosophical activity is a human “projection” onto the level of the divine emanation, the risk incurred is that of projecting the wrong ties and bounds within the sefirotic configuration, leading thereby to a fatal disruption[34].
In this perspective, the emanative configuration could be seen as a kind of compensatory mechanism for the actual and constant danger of rupture and discontinuity, while the mystical knowledge itself becomes an incessant effort of projecting a harmony and balancing a vulnerable structure, rather than being merely the result of a transcendent revelation. Knowledge acquires, consequently, a soteriological value, it becomes in itself theomorphic. This activity is called Tiqqun (“Reparation”), and it constitutes the genuine finality of the mystical approach: unifying the manifestations of the godhead and assuring the homogeneity of the spheres and of the hierarchy of manifestation and being (contrary to the Neo-Platonic and Gnostic schemes, which, in different ways, aim at creating a breakthrough in the ontological hierarchy). As a projection of intelligibility, the mystical approach doesn’t seek the dissolution into the absolute ontic and ontological homogeneity of the Oneness, but the maintenance of the plurality of being, which is rendered possible through the necessary harmony and continuity of bonds within the emanative configuration. In conclusion to this very schematic analysis, we could venture to affirm that in some of the major cabalistic theosophical texts:
I. The sefirotic configuration does not have a determined and determinable source, an identifiable origin or an ultimate authority /control position. Its generator is often represented as not included in the manifest configuration and thereby as not constituting a part of the creative divinity.
II. The aim of the mystical theosophical approach is not therefore the ecstatic fusion with the divine source; the absolutely transcendent notion of ‘Eyn Sof plays the role of a ‘principle of indeterminacy’, marking the aperture, rather than the limit and origin, of the sefirotic configuration.
III. We could speak of an ontology of the discrete, of the discontinuous: being is not conceived as simply generated or emanated out of nothingness[35], it is both being and non-being. Being is interrupted, disrupted and thusly made “manifest” by non-being.
IV. The sefirotic configuration is not merely the result of a mystical revelation and the blueprint of the divine and human worlds, but also an ‘ideal’ order and a projection of harmony and coherence upon the fragile and unstable emanation.
Notes
[5] Proclus` Hymns. Essays, translations and commentaries by R.M. Von den Berg, Boston/Koln 2001, p. 19.
[6]See: Shaul Magid, ”Origin and Overcoming the Beginning. Zimzum as a Trope of Reading in Post-Lurianic Kabbalah” in Beginning/Again. Toward a Hermeneutics of Jewish Texts, Aryeh Cohen & Shaul Magid (eds.), New York/London, 2002, p. 169.
[7] The way to manifest God`s presence within an instant of time-space is through veiling the direct revelation which is the equivalent of unveiling the fact that the absolute veils/hides itself. ”For the most manifest way to the knowledge of things is by their contraries: the thing that possesses no contrary and no opposite, its features being always exactly alike when you are looking at it, will very likely elude your notice altogether. In this case its obscureness results from its very obviousness, and its elusiveness from the very radiance of its brightness. Then glory to Him who hides Himself from His own creation by His utter manifestness, and is veiled from their gaze through the very effulgence of His own light!” (Al-Ghazzali, Mishkat, W.H.T. Gaerdner (tr.) in Four Sufi Classics, London, 1980, p. 128). Cf.: Elliot Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being. Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination. New York 2005, pp. 212-233.
[9] Translation proposed by Charles Mopsik in Introduction to Le Zohar, vol. II, Grasset 1984, p. 534.
[10] See : Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi, Commentary on Bereshit Rabbah, Moshe Hallamish (ed.), Jerusalem, 1984, 10a, p. 61; Le Commentaire d`Ezra de Gérone sur le Cantique des Cantiques, Georges Vajda (tr.), Paris 1969, p.52.
[11] See R. Isaac Sagi Nahor`s Commentary to the account of Creation in R. Asher ben David. His Complete Works and Studies in his Kabbalistic Thought (Hebrew), Daniel Abrams (ed.), Los Angeles 1994, p. 29.
[12] Sepher Yetzirah with Kabbalistic Commentaries (Hebrew). Jerusalem 1962, Pseudo-Rabad`s commentary, p. 30.
[14] Abraham Cohen de Herrera, Gate of Heaven, Kenneth Kralbenholt (tr.), Leiden/Boston/Koln, 2002, B.8, C.I.
[15]We have to mention here Steven Katz’s recent proposals of rendering the Neoplatonic logical scheme consistent by treating x in the proposition “For any q, x is not q” as logically similar to Cantor`s Aleph or Godel`s U, the universal class that itself is not a member of any class but which contains all sets. See Steven Katz “Utterance and Ineffability in Jewish Neoplatonism” in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, Goodman, E. Lenn (ed.), New York 1992, pp. 282-283.
[18] Elliot R. Wolfson, “Before Aleph/ Where Beginnings End” in Beginning/Again. Toward a Hermeneutics of Jewish Texts. Aryeh Cohen and Shaul Magid (eds.), New York/London 2002, pp.135-161.
[19]Sepher Yetsirah with Kabbalistic Commentaries (Hebrew). Jerusalem 1962, Ramban`s Commentary, p. 30.
[20]Pseudo-Rabad`s Commentary to Sepher Yetsirah in Sepher Yetsirah with Kabbalistic Commentaries, p. 31.
[21] See: Daniel C. Matt, “‘Ayn. The Concept of Nothingness in Jewish Mysticism” in Essential Papers on the Kabbalah. Fine, Lawrence (ed.), New York 1980, p. 69.
[22]R. Azriel of Gerona, “The Path of Faith and the Path of Dissent” (Derekh ‘Emunah uDerekh ha-Khephirah) in Scholem, Gershom, Studies in the Memory of A. Gulak and S.Klein, Jerusalem 1942, p.207.
[23] Ibid., p. 211. For a commentary on the notion of faith in this passage, see Mordechai Pachter ”The Root of Faith is the Root of Dissent” (Hebrew), Kabbalah 4/1999, pp. 315-340.
[24] See: Stephen Gersh, From Iamblichus to Eriugena. An Investigation of the Prehistory and Evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition. Leiden 1978, pp. 61-62.
[25]See : Azriel of Gerona, Commentaire sur la Liturgie Quotidienne. Introduction and translation by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, Leiden 1974, p. 84.
[27]Quoted and translated by Gershom Scholem in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York 1974, p. 217.
[29]An idea present also in The Book Bahir (Daniel Abrams, Sefer ha-Bahir with manuscripts. Los Angeles 1994, §103, p. 187)
[31] Charles Mopsik, Introduction to Lettre sur la Sainteté. Le secret de la relation entre l`home et la femme dans la Cabale. Paris 1986, p.43.
[32]See, for instance, R. Azriel of Gerona Perush `Eser Sephirot, London, British Library Add. 27173 (Cat. Margaliot 21/1087), fol. 17a-b.
[33]See : Charles Mopsik, Les grands textes de la Cabale. Les rites qui font Dieu, Paris 1993, pp. 103-104.