Parashat Vayigash 5784 — 12/23/2023
Beginning with Bereishit 5781 (17 October 2020) we embarked on a new format. We will be considering Rambam’s (Maimonides’) great philosophical work Moreh Nevukim (Guide for the Perplexed) in the light of the knowledge of Vedic Science as expounded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The individual essays will therefore not necessarily have anything to do with the weekly Torah portion, although certainly there will be plenty of references to the Torah, the rest of the Bible, and to the Rabbinic literature. For Bereishit we described the project. The next four parshiyyot, Noach through Chayei Sarah, laid out a foundational understanding of Vedic Science, to the degree I am capable of doing so. Beginning with Toledot we started examining Moreh Nevukim.
Bereishit 44:18-47:27
Rambam continues discussing essence vs. accident:
Now by denying the assertion that terms denoting accidents are attributes of the Creator, one does not deny the notion of accident. For every notion superadded to an essence is an adjunct to it and does not perfect its essence, and this is the meaning of accident. This should be considered in addition to the circumstances that there would be many eternal things if there were many attributes. For there is no oneness at all except in believing that there is one simple essence in which there is no complexity or multiplication of notions, but one notion only, so that from whatever angle you regard it and from whatever point of view you consider it, you will find that it is one, not divided in any way and by any cause into two notions, and you will not find therein any multiplicity either in the thing as it is outside of the mind or as it is in the mind, as shall be demonstrated in this Treatise. [Chapter II:22]
Rambam clarifies what an accident is, and shows that an accident only applies to something that is composite, and therefore changeable. Rambam here distinguishes between Unity that is whole and not composed of parts, as opposed to systems which are composed of parts that are linked and function in a coherent way, and are unified in that sense, but it is not the same as a perfect, unified whole that is not composed of parts.
Rambam asserts that there can be only one such unified whole. He promises us a proof later in the treatise, but we can appreciate that the assertion makes good sense. Such an entity must be transcendental to all the objects of creation – indeed it must be beyond space and time and any other categories that apply to the universe. It has no parts, just a simple unity. If there were two such entities, there would have to be something that distinguishes them, but that thing would have to be a part that differs between them. But they have no parts, so that cannot be the differentiating factor. One might think that these two simple unities are the same, but differ only in some quality (e.g. one is blue and the other red). But if this unity is transcendental to all forms and phenomena in the manifest creation, it can’t have any specific qualities – there is nothing to hang the qualities on. In other words, something that is unitary is also unique.
Rambam continues with a critique of some of the critics of this idea:
In discussing this subject, some people engaged in speculation have ended by saying that His attributes, may He be exalted, are neither His essence nor a thing external to His essence. This is similar to what others say, namely, that the modes – by which term they mean the universals – are neither existent nor nonexistent, and, again similar to what others say, that the atom is not in a place, but occupies a locality, and that there is no act of a man but that there may be an acquisition of an act by him. These are things that are merely said; and accordingly, they subsist only in words, not in the mind; all the more, they have no existence outside of the mind. But as you know and as everyone knows who does not deceive himself, these assertions are defended by means of many words and falsifying parables and are proved correct by shouting defamatory polemics and various complicated kinds of dialectic arguments and sophistries.
Rambam here is warning us that not all ideas in the marketplace are equally worthy, and the passion and vehemence with which they are advanced is not a proof of their truth (in math class, where of course there was a tremendous gap in knowledge and power between the professor and us, the students, we used to call it “proof by intimidation”). In other cases, people try to explain the unexplainable by means of paradoxes, which, at least on the surface, make no sense at all, yet they feel they are conveying profound insight into a deep mystery by speaking in obscure language. I imagine we have all met people like that, who may have had some profound experience of the transcendent, but when they try to describe it, it just comes out a muddle. Compare this, by the way, with Maharishi’s descriptions of higher states of consciousness: he uses clear and simple terms to describe experiences that are way beyond what most of his listeners have experienced, yet just listening to his descriptions can give one a glimpse of the reality he is talking about.
What Rambam is talking about when he is discussing knowledge is propositions that logically follow from a set of premises. In such a case it should be clear whether a proof is true or not, whether the reasoning is sound or if it involves a logical fallacy. As long as there is agreement on the premises, there should be agreement on the conclusions. Unfortunately for this neat picture, in 1931 Gödel proved that in any logical system that can encompass integer arithmetic, there are statements that cannot be proven either true or false within the system. If you expand the system of postulates to include this statement as a truism, you’ve just made the system more complex, and there will be another statement that likewise cannot be proven, etc. This theorem demonstrated the incompleteness of knowledge when we are dealing with logic and with finite objects and systems. How much more so when we are trying to get a grasp of Gd’s nature.
I believe that there is only one way out of this conundrum. Any language, any logical system, is a set of symbols that represent the existence and activities of finite things (perhaps not material things, but things that are bounded in any event). Therefore, if Gd is that unbroken, unique Unity that has no parts, no components, that never changes, we know that we cannot encompass Gd’s essence in any set of symbols or any structure of words. We can, however, experience the transcendental level of life in our mind, by allowing the mind to settle down and transcend all the objects of consciousness to experience Pure Consciousness, which is a state of unbroken Unity of consciousness. We go beyond our individuality and become universality, infinite, eternal and unbounded. This is a state in which Pure Consciousness knows itself, within itself, by itself, and since it is infinite and unbounded, this knowledge is completely full, with no restrictions. Now I have said that I don’t want to equate Pure Consciousness with Gd, yet both are described as Unity without parts. My suggestion is that the experience of Pure Consciousness is the way we, finite human beings, can experience Gd, if not in Gd’s complete wholeness, then at least in the sense of Gd’s transcendence and unity. The experience of the transcendent is of course beyond language and logic, and perhaps this is the source of much of the disagreement about it. On its own level of course, there is no disagreement, there is just the bliss of the experience of the ocean of Being.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
Commentary by Steve Sufian
Parashat Vayigash (“and he drew near”)
In this parshah, Joseph is reunited with his family – with his brothers, his sister Dinah, and most importantly, his father, Jacob. This is a taste of the reunion of isolated streams of life so they are brought together to experience the Wholeness that is greater than any of Its expressions, a taste of the reunion of the diversity of creation with the Unity that is Gd.
It is a taste of teshuvah, a taste of what life is like when the isolation of individuality is graced by the Wholeness of Gd and all limitations dissolve in the Unlimitedness of Gd.
The opportunity for the reunion occurs, when famine strikes in the region around Egypt, Mitzraim (restrictions) , including Canaan (Synchronicity), Jacob sends 10 of his sons to purchase food from Mitzraim , which due to Joseph’s gift of perceiving Gd’s message in dreams, has stored up food during fat years for the seven famine years that are now occurring.
Joseph, de facto ruler of Mitzrayim, recognizes his brothers though they do not recognize him. He plays tricks on them in order to get not only his brothers – some members of his family to bring the whole family together by getting their father also to come to the Raised Land of Mitzraim, Mitzraim ruled by Joseph, very much aligned with the Ocean of Wholeness that is Gd, with the whole family together.
One of the tricks is to hide a silver goblet in his brother Benjamin’s bag and then to discover it and claim that Benjamin, most dear to his father Jacob since Joseph was no longer with him, was a thief and must serve as Joseph’s slave.
The reunion begins when Judah draws near to Joseph, appealing to him that he will serve as slave to Joseph, instead of his brother Benjamin, child of his father Jacob’s old age.
Joseph is moved by Judah’s loyalty to his father and reveals that he is their brother Joseph, saying for them not to regret their selling him into slavery because it was all ordained by Gd to save the family at time of famine.
“Drawing near” is a means to get a taste of the reunification not only of Joseph’s family but also of all individuals with Gd. Torah gives a hint of more unification by sometimes calling Jacob, “Jacob” and sometimes “Israel.” “Jacob” means “heel,” spirituality clinging to the heel of materialism. “Israel” means something like “in the Splendor of Gd,” “embracing Gd,” “prevailing over Gd.”
When given the news that Joseph is alive and functional master of Egypt, as Jacob he is mistrustful but he sees the wealth Joseph gave to his brothers, “his spirit is revived” and now he believes Joseph is still alive, he is called “Israel” and as Israel he sets out for Egypt, making offerings to God at Beersheba.
When we trust that all happens according to Gd’s Will, that everything is done with the purpose of restoring us to Oneness, then we are no longer Jacob, spirituality clinging to the heel of materiality, but Israel, raised by the perception of Wholeness as the Essence of materiality, to awareness of our own Wholeness, our own Oneness.
Gd gives Israel a vision in the night, yet he calls to him “Jacob, Jacob” — though Gd may refer to us in our limited aspect it is to wake us up to our Unlimitedness.
Gd tells him not to be afraid of going to Egypt because Gd will protect him, make him a great nation, take him into Egypt and raise him from there.
chabad.org suggests that Jacob and Israel refer to qualities of the human being: as Jacob we are innocent, but toil; but as Israel we are children of Gd, and enjoy the tranquil, non-toiling relationship beyond struggle.
Loyalty (“Love thy neighbor as thyself”) is a means to reunification with the Jacob aspect of ourselves, the human servant aspect. “Offering” to Gd is a means to unfold more of the Israel aspect of ourselves, the divine aspect.
Through love of our neighbors/family/all humans, we raise the toiling aspect of ourselves to the higher level of our self, non-toiling, delighting as children of Gd, delighting in the Oneness that is our Self, the Only Self, Pure Delight, Free from Toil.
Today, in Judaism, we give prayers instead of animals as our offerings.
Through love and prayer, love in our hearts and our action and prayer in our hearts and our words we reunite ourselves and all and rise to All-in-All, to One, Pure Love, Pure Joy, Pure Delight.
Baruch HaShem.