Parashat Balak 5781 — 06/26/2021
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.
Bamidbar 22:2-25:9
This week we will continue our discussion of Avicenna and his influence on Rambam. Prof Pines writes:
It may be asserted with a certain plausibility that Maimonides shows traces of being contaminated by Avicennian doctrines in two fields: (1) metaphysics, i.e. the doctrine of being and of Gd, and (2) the theory of prophecy. It may be added that his recourse to Avicenna’s metaphysical doctrines possibly exemplifies some of the techniques of indirection mentioned above.
Prof. Pines perhaps shows some bias by saying that Rambam “shows traces of being contaminated” by Avicenna. I suppose if you are an Orthodox Aristotelian then the term is appropriate to describe someone who also puts himself out to be such. But of course, as we have learned Rambam was no orthodox Aristotelian and never pretended to be one. Rambam was, first and foremost, an observant, believing Jew, and while he would use Aristotle, or philosophy to underpin and strengthen belief in the fundamental tenets of Judaism, he would use it, but as a tool, not as a touchstone for truth.
This is an issue that we will return to – the epistemological issue of primacy when two sources appear to contradict one another. In this case we have philosophy (read “science” in the modern context) on the one side and revealed / prophetic religion on the other. Rambam’s basic position is that these are two different approaches to one Truth and that therefore there cannot be any essential conflict. There do, however, appear to be conflicts, and those may require reformulation of one side or the other. For Rambam, Scripture cannot be “reformulated,” although it may be open to novel interpretation. On the other hand, Rambam considered Aristotle’s logical deductions to be ironclad. This tension, it seems, will be with us as long as our own awareness fluctuates; when we transcend all the fluctuations of awareness then differences become harmonized and we perceive the unity between apparent differences. Our own experience of inner knowledge (“in-tuition”) is verifiable by objective means, and is also self-verifiable and consistent with the structure of our own consciousness.
Prof. Pines continues:
The metaphysical doctrines in question are concerned with the notions of essence and existence, and of necessary and contingent. Avicenna contended (and, because of this contention, was taken to task by Averroes and charged with introducing suitably modified kalām teaching into philosophy) that in all being, except Gd, there is a duality consisting of essence and existence. The essences by themselves have, contrary to the Platonic ideas, no existence; they are neutral with respect to being. With regard to them existence is an accident, which may or may not supervene. Hence all beings except Gd are contingent, or, to use the medieval Arabic and Hebrew term, possible; Gd, in whom the difference between essence and existence does not exist, is the only necessary being.
…
What are the implications of this deviation from the strict Aristotelian doctrine if one considers Maimonides’ philosophic position as a whole? Prima facie they seem to be considerable. For according to this view the existence of the universe ceases to be the primary datum postulated by Aristotle, beyond which one cannot and must not go; the cosmos is no longer taken for granted. Considered by itself, it is an accident that might not have occurred. Should one add (for the last phrase might seem unsatisfactory, attributing as it does the existence of the universe to chance): that might not have occurred but for the will of Gd?
Avicenna leaves no loophole for such an interpretation, if it implies that Gd might have chosen not to create a universe at all, or not this universe but a different one. In fact, in his philosophic system the contingent character of the world merely veils and disguises the essential necessity of the latter. For every contingent being is only contingent if it is taken by itself, but is ineluctably necessary if it is considered in relation to the concatenation of causes and effects starting with the First Cause, Gd, to which it owes its existence. In fact, Avicenna`s system is strictly deterministic. And this determinism extends to Gd and His activity.
The duality between essence and existence has reverberated down to modern times. Until modern times it was thought that essence preceded existence. That is, there was an essential “form” or disembodied idea of a thing before the thing appeared in concrete creation. In modern philosophy, existentialism holds that existence precedes essence, that is, there is no a priori form or ideal which an individual instantiates, rather each individual, by his or her actions, creates their own essence. In the words of the famous witticism: Descartes: “To be is to do.” Sartre: “To do is to be.” Sinatra: “Do be do be do!”
Needless to say, I am not going to resolve this dispute, about which whole libraries have been written, in the space of a few paragraphs, but I would like to make a few remarks. First, from the point of view of modern physics, we know that creation is structured in layers, with each “lower” layer being more and more abstract. Thus atoms are more abstract than molecules, and subatomic particles are more abstract than atoms. The grosser levels are concrete systems of the more abstract elements. Beneath all these layers is, we believe, a single Unified Field whose internal dynamics give rise to the myriad forms and phenomena – all the different layers of phenomena – that we see about us.
Vedic Science likewise asserts that subjective creation is structured in layers. Thought can be on the surface level of thinking, or it can be on quieter levels, which are more focused, yet also more abstract. At the basis of all thought is Pure Consciousness, which, like the Unified Field of physics, gives rise to all the forms and phenomena of creation. Fluctuations of Pure Consciousness are what appear to us as manifest creation, but, in truth, nothing other than Pure Consciousness really exists, and it displays all possibilities to itself.
This model of grosser and subtler levels (which has been verified on the objective side by physics, and on the subjective side by the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique), would, it seems to me, to favor the “idealist” approach, in the sense that subtler, more abstract levels are the “ideals” for the grosser levels, which are specific instantiations of the subtler “ideal” forms. Thus, the chair I am sitting on is an instantiation of the idea of “office chair” which is an instantiation of the idea of “chair” which in turn is the instantiation of the idea of “things you can sit on,” etc.
On the most abstract level, with all specificity abstracted away, we have Pure Existence or Pure Being. We experience this Pure Being as Pure Consciousness, and this level of existence / consciousness is not an instantiation of anything more abstract. Its essence is the same as its existence. It alone is self-sufficient; everything else depends on it – a formulation that I think both Avicenna and Rambam would be comfortable with. As for every other thing in creation, its essence is rooted in Pure Being; it exists in the abstract, but not necessarily in the concrete. Something comes into concrete existence through some set of processes that involve differentiation from the surroundings – we say it “e-merges,” comes out of a state where it is merged with its environment. But ultimately, everything exists eternally in potentiality, and what is displayed on the screen of time and space is a function of the internal dynamics of Pure Consciousness. Even a talking donkey.
We will return to Avicenna next week Gd willing.