Rambam is more or less recounting what is found
in the Talmud. The Talmud knows this partly from tradition and partly from Biblical exegesis.
Rambam, interestingly enough, is not out to write
history in Mishna Torah, the book excerpted in the post. He writes in the introduction that his book is a book of laws exclusively.
Some have wondered therefore why the Rambam included this narrative in his book at all.
The Lubaviture Rebbe was of the opinion that Rambam included the first part (everything up to the degeneration of the house of Ya'acov) to teach how the belief in idolatry (the foundational prohibition of idol worship) is utterly irrational ("mistake", "foolish", etc.) and therefore must be negated rationally. And he, according to the Rebbe, included the later section (the degeneration and subsequent founding of the laws on the word of G-d) to teach that the negation of idolatry must ultimately be based on
obedience to G-d, as rationality
cannot guarantee one go in the right path (as evidenced by the degenaration of the "nation who knows G-d").
I myself translated this because i intend to write a series of post about Avraham and will constantly
need to refer to it for context. while there is a goo translation of this part on the web, I find it reads difficultly. There is a very good, very readable, translation of the whole work out there (it's about a million volumes) by one Rabbi Touger, but it's not available for on-line exerptation.
As soon as this mighty one [Avraham] was weaned [the beginning of his third year of life], he began to contemplate day and night. He wondered to himself how just the sphere moves in a fixed path without anything directing it. He had no teachers nor guides of any kind, but rather, was raised in Ur Kasdim among foolish idolaters. His father, mother, and all people, generally, served idols; and he served along with them. But he contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth.
So is it fair to say that he intuited through a profound human spiritual experience transcendant truth (s) ? And that his teachings express his contemplative experiences ?
So is it fair to say that he intuited through a profound human spiritual experience transcendant truth (s) ? And that his teachings express his contemplative experiences ?
"he intuited through a profound human spiritual experience transcendant truth(s)"
intuited = direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process.(Dictionary.com)
Not at all. He arrived at his conclusion through the application of logic.
contemplate = to look at or view with continued attention; observe or study thoughtfully(ibid.)
When I used the word "contemplate" I meant to convey- "observe or study thoughtfully"
Perhaps you can suggest a better word?
Transcendant truth(s)
By definition, one can neither intuit nor come to by logic truth(s) that transcend him.
But there is another reason I suspect Maimonedes wrote this introduction as he did. Well, a few actually. I think one of them was related to something he said in the Guide for the Perplexed (which I liked a lot, didn't agree with all of it of course but I liked a lot and recommend to anyone interested in Medieval Judaism).
Anywho, although not really mystical in the traditional sense, and more scholastic and academic and historical and scientific in outlook, and often considered the antithesis of Kabalistic rabbis, I personally suspect that in certain areas Moses was very much the mystic. One of those areas might be classified as what I call Anthropological Spirituality as it relates both to religion, and to God. Remember that Moses was a physician, and that greatly influenced his scientific outlook but also his psychological (as the Greeks would use it) one, especially as regards religion and God.
He saw psychological pursuits as either helping to create a soul in man, or at the very least, depending on when he was writing in his career, as harmonizing the mortal soul in men with the immortal spirit of God, and that was one possible method of developing an immortalized soul, to simplify these issues, though that is a gross simplification. It is very similar to the idea of the Resurrection Body in mystical Christianity, complete with the Divine and semi-divine and hyper-physical attributes of the Resurrection Body. Moses was a fierce pro-Resurrectionist like Jesus, by the way, though he had a peculiar way of viewing the resurrection. Ideas like scriptural resurrection are very unscientific positions for modern times, though that is changing by elapse and bounds among current scientists, but was not a real dichotomy of his age. Newton was fiercely scientific and fiercely mystical. So was Galileo and nearly all the giants of early science, right on up to Einstein and beyond. Only the small minded scientist was atheistic and there were very, very few of those, up until Darwin. But many of those scientists were not just religious, but mystically religious as well.
But to get back to Moses I think his primary concern in this regard was this, in worshipping idols (any creation of God or any being less than God and hence less than perfect) one was in a way, through the methodology of worship harmonizing one's mortal soul with powers or beings whose existence could not transmits to man or help a man develop either a Resurrection Body or a soul (indeed often led in the opposite direction, towards materialism, and here is where Moses parted with Aristotle) and therefore could not help man immortalize his own soul. Therefore any man who worshipped idols might not be just engaged in a mistake, but would be engaged in a "psychological mistake" that is, endangering the immortality of his own soul. He wasn't just breaking a law or commandment, but by pursuing a basically "mortal end" and a mortal objective through the medium of a mortal target, the idol, whatever that might be, he was not entraining (to use a scientific term) his soul to God, but to some lesser entity or being or force which aside from the impossibility of achieving immortality through the practice of mortality, one was making it basically impossible for one to become immortal and therefore remain always separate from God. Of course Moses did not believe in the Resurrection in the same way many other Jews and Christians do, or as do I when I say Resurrection Body, but I am merely saying that to him pursuit of idols leads away from both Spiritual Immortality and Resurrected capability. so he did not look at it merely as a matter of law per se, or injunction against a given activity, but that if idolatry were pursued earnestly then it would directly interfere with the development of a man's soul in imitation of God and therefore constitute both a real and "scientific barrier," and a psychological barrier, to God. God therefore wished to advise against such self-inflicted barriers in the strongest possible way and therefore he incorporated the principal as one of the major legal tenets in the Torah and Jewish Law (though I am not of the opinion that things like the Ten Commandments are merely Law as in legal principles, but are correspondingly existential principles - by that I do not mean existential philosophy, but rather encoded universal principles describing both biological and non-biological forces fundamental to existence.)
But in addition I think Moses also saw idolatry as directly interfering with Prophetic development in the world, and with the proper correction of the world, as well as a direct violation of humility, that is, the more like a being was to God then less likely it would be to appreciate being worshipped as God. In other words idolatry interferes with both the development of the individual human soul, and with the proper functioning of the government of God (that is the best way of the world being run) in the world. So if he is right, then idolatry constitutes more than just a moral danger, but a pragmatic, spiritual (in the widest sense), psychological (to both the mind and soul), and even meta-political one as well. And of course I think he had other reasons as well, but that's not really important.
That's my personal take on what he was likely driving at anyways.
...he contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth.
comprehend = to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive: (dictionary.com)
When I used the word comprehend I meant to convey
something like "grasp with mind". I could also have used something like "arrived at the truth".
Perhaps you are bothered by the lack of object to the verb phrase "contemplated constantly". If so I suggest you supply in your mind the understood "about the issue".
You guys are going to be getting very complicated, long winded and very bull shipping.
All I did was quote:
"...But he contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth."
So now you send me to a dictionary or give your own dictionary definitions.
What's up with that ?
Like it says,
"...he contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth."
It doesn't need context. Truth is Truth. He either did or did not comprehend it, and found something valuable but of course no one on the planet can exegete it except Rambam and one or two other people, like al Ghazali and of course the other billions of people since time began haven't or wont ever get a clue. Right ?
Or could it be that Avraham had an experience from a higher source from which he developed his teachings ?
I personally suspect that in certain areas Moses was very much the mystic.
You never cease to surprise me, Jack.
The Rambam's relationship with the Kabalah and his intent with the guide is not as clear cut as there is good reason and much pleasure for some to believe.
No it is not true to say that. In fact, it is the very opposite of the truth. However, after G-d reveals himself to Avraham at age 75 "Go .... to the land which I will show you, Avraham's teachings
and divine service take on a higher character completely.
But even that is not what the Rambam is trying to say now. Not for nothing does the Rambam not mention G-d's revelation in the narrative. Even though the first revelation happened before Avraham arrived to land of Cana'an, which is mentioned. (See the above mentioned understanding of the Rambam's intent in recounting the episode.)
"I personally suspect that in certain areas Moses was very much the mystic."
You never cease to surprise me, Jack.
The Rambam's relationship with the Kabalah and his intent with the guide is not as clear cut as there is good reason and much pleasure for some to believe.
Sorry I thought you wrote, I personally suspect that in certain areas Rambam was very much the mystic.
Yeah, I should have made that more clear for people who aren't all that familiar with what you were discussing, or even to avoid confusing you by the usage.
.
I probably should have said either Rambam or Maimonedes, but I just grew up calling him Moses, and unless I'm speaking about the original Moses and him in the same context, I just always say Moses. It's just kind of a reflexive habit.
Maimonedes is one of my personal Saints (I'm not calling a Saint perfect, just good enough in some area or another as for me to want to model myself after, or even try to exceed their accomplishments) and a favorite, a fella I've tried to model my own life and way of accomplishing things after. (Not to say Moses the prophet isn't one of my personal Saints). I have lists of people who are my Saints and people I try to model myself after in one way or another. Scientific Saints, Secular Saints, Political Saints, Military Saints, Civil Saints, Investigative Saints, Athletic Saints, Artistic Saints, Poetic and Literary Saints, Religious Saints, Exploratory Saints, Spiritual Saints. I even have a prayer written in which I ask God for the Genius of Da Vinci, the Compassion of Saint Francis, the Spirit of Moses, the Insight of Archimedes, the Inventiveness of Edison, the Poetic Talents of Dante, and so forth. Moses was like Aquinas or Leonardo to me, one of those fellas who crossed so many different boundaries and was so accomplished in so many different fields that he is a model to me in several different ways. So to me he's just always Moses when I think about him.
He was also fundamental in the development of my own Theory of the Renaissance Man, for he truly was one, and was fundamental in helping me develop my own program of Renaissance Education. I don't care much for modern ideals of devoting one's entire life to extremely narrow and constricted singular fields of life-time devotion and specialization to a profession because I think it limits what one is able to perceive, conceive, develop, understand, and innovate. In other words as the old saying goes, the expert is the man who knows more and more about less and less, and by virtue of this fact his accomplishments and understanding is extremely limited. I much prefer the insightful and multi-capable Polymath to the expert and narrow Specialist. That's just me I suppose. (Though I'm not a worshipper of intelligence and learning and knowledge just for the sake of learning, as is the modern bent either. Learning is good for something, or it means nothing to me. I much prefer the company of the simple and humble wise man to the much-learned and arrogant intelligentsia. I've never been much of an intellectual, or I guess you could say, I've never seen the point of being an intellectual if that's all a person is gonna be. A person oughtta be something more than just his mind. Moses was a scholar but also a physician. I can both like and understand a guy like that.)
So Maimonedes was one of my personal Saints, but he was also, like Leonardo and Aquinas and Bacon and Newton and Saint Ignatius and Erasmus and some others a very real model for me of the Renaissance Man, and since that's how I've modeled the way I try to do and pursue things in the world, he was important to me in more than one way. So in my mind he's always Moses unless I'm discussing the other Moses.
Sorry about the confusion. I should have stated that differently probably. It was my bad.
The same (or similar) story is in the Qur'an, and it matches Naftali's claim that Abraham reached his monotheism through contemplation and reflection:
So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude. When the night covered him over, He saw a star: He said: "This is my Lord." But when it set, He said: "I love not those that set." When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said: "unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray." When he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all)." But when the sun set, he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah. For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah." (Qur'an: 75-79, trans. Yusuf Ali)
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have Christ as a personal Saint as well.
Well, to me he's more than a Saint.
But I got your point.
11.1.2007 11:13am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Forgive us, Naftali. Some of us don't really know.
in the Talmud. The Talmud knows this partly from tradition and partly from Biblical exegesis.
Rambam, interestingly enough, is not out to write
history in Mishna Torah, the book excerpted in the post. He writes in the introduction that his book is a book of laws exclusively.
Some have wondered therefore why the Rambam included this narrative in his book at all.
The Lubaviture Rebbe was of the opinion that Rambam included the first part (everything up to the degeneration of the house of Ya'acov) to teach how the belief in idolatry (the foundational prohibition of idol worship) is utterly irrational ("mistake", "foolish", etc.) and therefore must be negated rationally. And he, according to the Rebbe, included the later section (the degeneration and subsequent founding of the laws on the word of G-d) to teach that the negation of idolatry must ultimately be based on
obedience to G-d, as rationality
cannot guarantee one go in the right path (as evidenced by the degenaration of the "nation who knows G-d").
need to refer to it for context. while there is a goo translation of this part on the web, I find it reads difficultly. There is a very good, very readable, translation of the whole work out there (it's about a million volumes) by one Rabbi Touger, but it's not available for on-line exerptation.
So is it fair to say that he intuited through a profound human spiritual experience transcendant truth (s) ? And that his teachings express his contemplative experiences ?
"he intuited through a profound human spiritual experience transcendant truth(s)"
intuited = direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process.(Dictionary.com)
Not at all. He arrived at his conclusion through the application of logic.
contemplate = to look at or view with continued attention; observe or study thoughtfully(ibid.)
When I used the word "contemplate" I meant to convey- "observe or study thoughtfully"
Perhaps you can suggest a better word?
Transcendant truth(s)
By definition, one can neither intuit nor come to by logic truth(s) that transcend him.
...he contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth.
And that was a function of logic or infused knowledge ?
But there is another reason I suspect Maimonedes wrote this introduction as he did. Well, a few actually. I think one of them was related to something he said in the Guide for the Perplexed (which I liked a lot, didn't agree with all of it of course but I liked a lot and recommend to anyone interested in Medieval Judaism).
Anywho, although not really mystical in the traditional sense, and more scholastic and academic and historical and scientific in outlook, and often considered the antithesis of Kabalistic rabbis, I personally suspect that in certain areas Moses was very much the mystic. One of those areas might be classified as what I call Anthropological Spirituality as it relates both to religion, and to God. Remember that Moses was a physician, and that greatly influenced his scientific outlook but also his psychological (as the Greeks would use it) one, especially as regards religion and God.
He saw psychological pursuits as either helping to create a soul in man, or at the very least, depending on when he was writing in his career, as harmonizing the mortal soul in men with the immortal spirit of God, and that was one possible method of developing an immortalized soul, to simplify these issues, though that is a gross simplification. It is very similar to the idea of the Resurrection Body in mystical Christianity, complete with the Divine and semi-divine and hyper-physical attributes of the Resurrection Body. Moses was a fierce pro-Resurrectionist like Jesus, by the way, though he had a peculiar way of viewing the resurrection. Ideas like scriptural resurrection are very unscientific positions for modern times, though that is changing by elapse and bounds among current scientists, but was not a real dichotomy of his age. Newton was fiercely scientific and fiercely mystical. So was Galileo and nearly all the giants of early science, right on up to Einstein and beyond. Only the small minded scientist was atheistic and there were very, very few of those, up until Darwin. But many of those scientists were not just religious, but mystically religious as well.
But to get back to Moses I think his primary concern in this regard was this, in worshipping idols (any creation of God or any being less than God and hence less than perfect) one was in a way, through the methodology of worship harmonizing one's mortal soul with powers or beings whose existence could not transmits to man or help a man develop either a Resurrection Body or a soul (indeed often led in the opposite direction, towards materialism, and here is where Moses parted with Aristotle) and therefore could not help man immortalize his own soul. Therefore any man who worshipped idols might not be just engaged in a mistake, but would be engaged in a "psychological mistake" that is, endangering the immortality of his own soul. He wasn't just breaking a law or commandment, but by pursuing a basically "mortal end" and a mortal objective through the medium of a mortal target, the idol, whatever that might be, he was not entraining (to use a scientific term) his soul to God, but to some lesser entity or being or force which aside from the impossibility of achieving immortality through the practice of mortality, one was making it basically impossible for one to become immortal and therefore remain always separate from God. Of course Moses did not believe in the Resurrection in the same way many other Jews and Christians do, or as do I when I say Resurrection Body, but I am merely saying that to him pursuit of idols leads away from both Spiritual Immortality and Resurrected capability. so he did not look at it merely as a matter of law per se, or injunction against a given activity, but that if idolatry were pursued earnestly then it would directly interfere with the development of a man's soul in imitation of God and therefore constitute both a real and "scientific barrier," and a psychological barrier, to God. God therefore wished to advise against such self-inflicted barriers in the strongest possible way and therefore he incorporated the principal as one of the major legal tenets in the Torah and Jewish Law (though I am not of the opinion that things like the Ten Commandments are merely Law as in legal principles, but are correspondingly existential principles - by that I do not mean existential philosophy, but rather encoded universal principles describing both biological and non-biological forces fundamental to existence.)
But in addition I think Moses also saw idolatry as directly interfering with Prophetic development in the world, and with the proper correction of the world, as well as a direct violation of humility, that is, the more like a being was to God then less likely it would be to appreciate being worshipped as God. In other words idolatry interferes with both the development of the individual human soul, and with the proper functioning of the government of God (that is the best way of the world being run) in the world. So if he is right, then idolatry constitutes more than just a moral danger, but a pragmatic, spiritual (in the widest sense), psychological (to both the mind and soul), and even meta-political one as well. And of course I think he had other reasons as well, but that's not really important.
That's my personal take on what he was likely driving at anyways.
comprehend = to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive: (dictionary.com)
When I used the word comprehend I meant to convey
something like "grasp with mind". I could also have used something like "arrived at the truth".
Perhaps you are bothered by the lack of object to the verb phrase "contemplated constantly". If so I suggest you supply in your mind the understood "about the issue".
Anyways, study the context.
All I did was quote:
"...But he contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth."
So now you send me to a dictionary or give your own dictionary definitions.
What's up with that ?
Like it says,
"...he contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth."
It doesn't need context. Truth is Truth. He either did or did not comprehend it, and found something valuable but of course no one on the planet can exegete it except Rambam and one or two other people, like al Ghazali and of course the other billions of people since time began haven't or wont ever get a clue. Right ?
Or could it be that Avraham had an experience from a higher source from which he developed his teachings ?
You are losing your cool. Address me in the manner in which I shall always take care to address you and we will continue this conversation.
Naftali
You never cease to surprise me, Jack.
The Rambam's relationship with the Kabalah and his intent with the guide is not as clear cut as there is good reason and much pleasure for some to believe.
I am attempting to seek an answer to a question not based on dictionary selections or some later guys interpretation:
If it is correct...that...Avraham...
"contemplated constantly until he comprehended the truth."
Would it not be true to say he had had a profound personal experience which was the foundation for his religious teachings ?
and divine service take on a higher character completely.
But even that is not what the Rambam is trying to say now. Not for nothing does the Rambam not mention G-d's revelation in the narrative. Even though the first revelation happened before Avraham arrived to land of Cana'an, which is mentioned. (See the above mentioned understanding of the Rambam's intent in recounting the episode.)
Sorry I thought you wrote, I personally suspect that in certain areas Rambam was very much the mystic.
.
I probably should have said either Rambam or Maimonedes, but I just grew up calling him Moses, and unless I'm speaking about the original Moses and him in the same context, I just always say Moses. It's just kind of a reflexive habit.
Maimonedes is one of my personal Saints (I'm not calling a Saint perfect, just good enough in some area or another as for me to want to model myself after, or even try to exceed their accomplishments) and a favorite, a fella I've tried to model my own life and way of accomplishing things after. (Not to say Moses the prophet isn't one of my personal Saints). I have lists of people who are my Saints and people I try to model myself after in one way or another. Scientific Saints, Secular Saints, Political Saints, Military Saints, Civil Saints, Investigative Saints, Athletic Saints, Artistic Saints, Poetic and Literary Saints, Religious Saints, Exploratory Saints, Spiritual Saints. I even have a prayer written in which I ask God for the Genius of Da Vinci, the Compassion of Saint Francis, the Spirit of Moses, the Insight of Archimedes, the Inventiveness of Edison, the Poetic Talents of Dante, and so forth. Moses was like Aquinas or Leonardo to me, one of those fellas who crossed so many different boundaries and was so accomplished in so many different fields that he is a model to me in several different ways. So to me he's just always Moses when I think about him.
He was also fundamental in the development of my own Theory of the Renaissance Man, for he truly was one, and was fundamental in helping me develop my own program of Renaissance Education. I don't care much for modern ideals of devoting one's entire life to extremely narrow and constricted singular fields of life-time devotion and specialization to a profession because I think it limits what one is able to perceive, conceive, develop, understand, and innovate. In other words as the old saying goes, the expert is the man who knows more and more about less and less, and by virtue of this fact his accomplishments and understanding is extremely limited. I much prefer the insightful and multi-capable Polymath to the expert and narrow Specialist. That's just me I suppose. (Though I'm not a worshipper of intelligence and learning and knowledge just for the sake of learning, as is the modern bent either. Learning is good for something, or it means nothing to me. I much prefer the company of the simple and humble wise man to the much-learned and arrogant intelligentsia. I've never been much of an intellectual, or I guess you could say, I've never seen the point of being an intellectual if that's all a person is gonna be. A person oughtta be something more than just his mind. Moses was a scholar but also a physician. I can both like and understand a guy like that.)
So Maimonedes was one of my personal Saints, but he was also, like Leonardo and Aquinas and Bacon and Newton and Saint Ignatius and Erasmus and some others a very real model for me of the Renaissance Man, and since that's how I've modeled the way I try to do and pursue things in the world, he was important to me in more than one way. So in my mind he's always Moses unless I'm discussing the other Moses.
Sorry about the confusion. I should have stated that differently probably. It was my bad.
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have Christ as a personal Saint as well.
The gentleman is known to have said:
"Before Abraham was, I am (John viii, 58.
Others will find that might contravene a certain amount of logic, but what the hey , its a crazy world out there.
Well, to me he's more than a Saint.
But I got your point.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.