Parashat Tzav 5781 — 03/27/2021
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.
Vayikra 6:1-8:36
Last week we began a discussion of Divine Providence, the idea that Gd watches over human beings and even guides their (our) actions. We saw that Providence is bound up with our conception of Gd’s knowledge and with the existence of, and potential limit on, human free will. This week, Gd willing, we will continue with some further points from Prof. Pines, and next week we will look at the issue from the perspective of Vedic Science.
Prof. Pines continues in the passage we began last week:
The Peripatetic doctrine could be described as a halfway house between the Epicurean negation of teleology in nature and the Stoic proclamation of an all-embracing providence. But it differs from either of these schools in an essential point: it affirms the eternity of the cosmos and of the cosmic order, whose preservation may (it is a question of terminology) be attributed to divine providence. But as far as individual beings and individual events are concerned, it denies any intervention of providence.
“Peripatetic” means “walking around,” which was famously the way Aristotle was supposed to have taught. It’s probably healthier than sitting in lectures all day. Prof. Pines identifies two extremes in the way Providence is viewed. The “Epicurean negation of teleology in nature” of course means there can be no such thing as Divine Providence. If the universe is basically random and has no purpose (no “teleology”), then there can hardly be any special attention on Gd’s part to achieve any purpose. Life is viewed as a random set of circumstances with no overarching order, and certainly nature does not at all concern itself with the desires of puny human beings.
This debate is not merely an ancient controversy; I would point out that the view here ascribed to the Epicureans is exactly the view of certain “scientific atheists,” who feel that the findings of science prove that there is no purpose to the universe. The underlying idea seems to be that the universe is purely material, and the material world runs on automatic. It just is, and it has no intrinsic significance, and human beings certainly have no intrinsic significance. There is no moral order in the universe; any morality that we see is created by human beings in an evolutionary process to ensure species survival. Such a view is hard to prove or disprove. Is there in fact order and purpose to creation? The fact that we may not be able to discern such purpose (there is certainly a great deal of order, and in fact, without this order the whole project of objective science would go out the window) may be more a function of our limited perception than anything else (“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”).
The Stoics on the other hand believed that Divine Providence was constantly at work guiding everything in the universe, presumably according to some plan, inscrutable to us but well known to Gd. This is summarized in the famous Talmudic dictum that “a person does not stub his toe below unless it had already been decreed on him from above.” This leaves open the question whether Gd has a script for the universe, down to the very last detail, and we have no ability to deviate from it in the slightest – that is, we have no free will. But, as Isaac Bashevis Singer famously quipped, “We have to believe in Free Will – we have no choice!”
Prof Pines goes on:
However, the Aristotelian doctrine was opposed to the Epicurean on yet another point. It considered that through intellectual activity some men, the happy few, may and should transcend the limitations of human nature, or at least of human nature as it is commonly conceived. As the Nicomachean Ethics, which was well known to Mainmonides, puts it: “If then the intellect is something divine in comparison with man, so is the life of the intellect divine in comparison with human life. Nor ought we to obey those who enjoin that a man should have man’s thoughts and a mortal the thoughts of mortality, but we ought so far as possible to achieve immortality, and do all that man may to live in accordance with the highest thing in him.” And again (x. viii. 13. 1179a28 ff.): “It seems likely that the man who pursues intellectual activity, and who cultivates his intellect and keeps that in the best condition, is also the man most beloved of the gods. For, if, as is generally believed, the gods exercise some supervision over human affairs, then it will be reasonable to suppose that they take pleasure in that part of man which is best and most akin to themselves, namely, the intellect, and that they recompense with their favors those men who esteem and honor this most, because these care for the things dear to themselves, and act rightly and nobly. Now it is clear that all these attributes belong most of all to the wise man. He therefore is most beloved by the gods; and if so, he is naturally most happy.”
Whatever the correct interpretation of the reference to the gods may be, it is clear that Aristotle’s position, as set forth in the second passage, foreshadows, and may account for, Maimonides’ view that the human individual’s share in divine providence is proportionate to his intellectual powers and that providence does not watch over the nonrational animals (see Guide III:17 and 51)
We see in this passage that Divine Providence, to Aristotle and to Rambam, is not a black-or-white proposition, but rather a spectrum, and depends on the degree of development of the intellect. The greater the level of intellectual development, the greater is the degree of supervision that Gd / “the gods” over the life of that individual. I would caution again that I believe the use of the word “intellect” here does not mean the intellect as we have come to know it, as one faculty of the mind (the faculty that makes distinctions). I believe it was used in a much broader sense, perhaps in the sense of “consciousness,” and living an intellectual life means living with a highly developed consciousness, not just constantly thinking and trying to understand things discursively.
In the spirit of leaving something for next time, I will conclude by exploring Rambam’s view further and taking a different perspective on it from Vedic Science.
Pesach begins tomorrow – Chag Kasher v’Same’ach to all!
Next week is the 7th day of Pesach. I’ll take a break from Rambam and present something a bit more Pesach-oriented. We’ll conclude our examination of Divine Providence the week after, parashat Shemini, Gd willing.
*************************************************
Commentary by Steve Sufian
Parashat Tzav
“Tzav” means “commandment.” By doing what Gd commands us to do, we move towards Full Restoration of Awareness that Gd is One without a Second and Gd plays the roles of us for the fun of it.
Tzav is read on Shabbat HaGadol, the Sabbath preceding Passover when we celebrate not only the angels of death passing over our ancestors but all humanity passing over from Egypt (“Mitzrayim”, restrictions) to Canaan, synchronicty, all details Integrated by the Whole that is Gd.
In the previous parshah Vayikra, Gd called to Moses to tell Aaron and his sons, the priests, the nature of the offerings they will make. In this parshah, Tzav, Gd commands Moses to tell Aaron and his sons their rights and their responsibilities regarding the offerings and the eternal fire into which the offerings are made.
The symbolism here is very sweet: in order for the fire to be eternal, to not go out, it needs to be fed each morning with fresh wood. The eternal fire symbolizes the relation between Gd and humanity; for it to be eternal it needs to bed each day so we can experience the Full Restoration of our awareness to Oneness with Gd, the Eternal, the One.
Similarly, the fire symbolizes the Fire of our own soul, which guides us to act lovingly so our actions are good actions, our actions draw us near to Gd and also near to all the expressions, Creation, of Gd: our family, friends, neighbors, strangers, trees, plants, rivers, stones — all the expressions of Gd.
And in order for this fire to be kept burning, for our soul to be kept interacting with Gd and with Gd’s world, we need to make offerings, not only every morning as with wood for the eternal fire in the Tabernacle, but every moment — lest our soul withdraw from our personality, distance itself from Gd, if we fail to draw near to our soul by offering our good actions to Gd.
Baruch HaShem