The Robe Not Taken: Levi Yitzchak on Parasha Tetzaveh

One of the reasons I love studying Chassidus is that these Rabbis use the weekly Torah portion merely as a jumping off point for their own philosophical and spiritual exegesis. The discussion of the Torah portion is often so short lived, it makes me laugh. This week is no exception when it comes to Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev's famous book Kedushat Levi. This is all to the good, because Reb Levi Yitzchak has offered us some beautiful gems which once again support my contention that nondualism has been a vibrant and essential part of Judaic thought well before the Neo-Hasidic movement popularized it.

Levi Yitzchak begins his exegesis thusly: "When reflecting...[man] realizes that even opposites possess a common denominator, they emerged into existence as an expression of the will of the One...It follows that they should perceive themselves as being part of the great whole...Unity in our world is the result of the recognition that we all share the same root. The awe inspired by this realization should inspire Unity."

Here we get as plain a statement as we can on the fundamental belief in nondual theology in a very traditional source.

In a nice turn of metaphor, Levi Yitzchak then shows how, though we seem or appear different to one another, this is only on the level of the constricted mind. He does this by discussing the different color robes that different High Priests donned. Apparently, though the details are unimportant to me, Yitzchak wore green, Yaakov wore red and both Moshe and Aaron wore their own particular choice of vestments (he doesn't say what). Then Levi Yitzchak says:

"Similarly, every tzaddik wears a garment tailored to his specific measurements. When these tzaddikim look at the Ein Sof [the most abstract of abstract notions of God, lit. 'without end']., they divest themselves of all that marks them as distinct individuals."

I always, and then is very idiosyncratic to me, interpret the term tzaddik to mean simply, holy person or righteous person. The rabbis surely meant someone who was without sin and in complete perfection. No matter. This line functions beautifully as an image of life as a nondual Jew. Each of us wears the "garments" [self-hood] tailored to our requirements, but in light of the expanded mind and the Unity of God, these "garments" divest! as they are all that mark us as distinct individuals.

Levi Yitzchak even goes on to show how the running and returning, the ratzo v'shov of our constricted and expanded mind, was commonplace among even the most holy tzaddikim:

"There are tzaddikim who after reaching the level of complete self-negation and attachment to the Ein Sof, nonetheless revert to a degree of individuality"

He even holds that with the understanding of the ideal nondual mindset, we get an answer to the long standing Rabbinic question as to why Moshe's name is not mentioned at all in this week's portion.

Levi Yitzchak holds that "it is a compliment to Moshe. It would not have been appropriate to mention his name, which is, after all, a reference to individuality at a time when Moshe had already ascended Sinai to be face to face with the Ein Sof and thus divested himself of his individuality."

When I read these passages, I am so full of fire and light. This is the Jewish life I want. These are the Jewish words that inspire me. These are the Rabbis who light my path. May we all deserve the title of tzaddik through our recognition of everything as One thing

Good Shabbos.

Welcome and "The View From Nowhere"

So I've noticed that this blog now has several followers! I want to welcome everybody and encourage you to comment and question. I have so much to learn, truly. Knowing that I've now opened this blog up to public viewing, I will try to explain my postings and the terminology in them more fully; before, the blog was functioning more as a sort of repository for quotations and ideas I thought were interesting and was meant primarily for my own perusal.

That said, I had a deep moment today. I just finished reading a novel called 36 Arguments For The Existence of God. The title of the novel is meant somewhat ironically as it is the title of an appendix for an imaginary work of philosophy that the protagonist, Cass Seltzer has written in which he destroys all 36 known arguments for the existence of God through reason. This "fictional" appendix actually appears at the end of the very real book that's sitting on my lap right now. There is one scene in particular which I wanted to share as it has to do directly with this blog. Towards the end of the novel, Professor Cass Seltzer debates another professor regarding the proposition: God exists. Cass is arguing from the negative position though he does not see this as inconsistent with religious practice. I decided to quote a bit of what Cass argues about the goal of ethical life because I think it dovetails nicely with all the neo-hasidic and nondual Jewish beliefs I've been exploring here (the brackets are mine!):

"There is a point of view that's available to all of us. The philosopher Thomas Nagel called it the 'View from Nowhere.' When you view the fact that you happen to be the particular person you are from the vantage point of the View from Nowhere, that fact shrivels into insignificance. Of, course, we don't live our life from this perspective [ratzo v'shov!!!!!] We live inside our lives, where it's impossible not to feel one's self to matter. But still, that View from Nowhere is always available to us, reminding us that there's nothing inherently special or uniquely deserving about any of us, that it's just an accident that one happens to be who one happens to be. And the consequence of these reflections is this: if we can't live coherently without believing ourselves to matter, then we can't live coherently without extending the same mattering to everyone else. The work of ethics is the work of getting one's self to this vantage point and keeping it relevant to how one sees the world and acts. There are truths to discover in this process and they are the truths that make us change our behavior...and become moral grown-ups [as opposed to changing our behavior for fear of punishment or gain of reward]."

This was revelatory when I read it. It seems to me that this "View from Nowhere" is synonymous with bittul ha-yesh, or nullification of self that comes with the realization of the Oneness of reality. The "work of ethics" to achieve this outlook that "Cass" refers to is my own rationale for Jewish (or in general, religious) practice. The more one realizes this Unity, that Ein Od Milvado is true, the more one realizes our responsibility to one another and the Earth because ultimately, those differences are illusory even though we LIVE in the going and returning, the ratzo v'shov, of subjectivity and the View from Nowhere. This is beautiful because I think the contemplation of this View, or this nullification of self, informs both our subjectivity and our objectivity and that is the work.

If We Could See, "We" Don't Really Exist

Sorry for all the Tanya here. I'm reading through Shaar HaYichudEmunah and it's really blowing my mind. It's the foundation for a lot of Chassidus and far better reading than the earlier parts of the Tanya when it discusses all manner of souls in frequently xenophobic or misogynistic terms. So, for the good stuff:

"Every discerning person will understand clearly that every creature and being, though it appears to have an existence of its own, is in reality considered to be absolute naught and nothingness...The reason that all things created and activated appear to us as existing and tangible is that we do not comprehend nor see with our physical eyes the power of God and the 'breath of His mouth' which IS the created thing...Hence, there is truly nothing beside Him."

Chapter 3

I'm just amazed how much of this mirrors our modern understanding of physics and the manner of the creation of the Universe through the Big Bang. Obviously, the language here, like the 'breath of His mouth' is poetic; but it functions in the same way as the word matter, or primal energy, or superstrings could.

The Tanya on the Shema:

On Judaism's most important proclamation, the Shema, Shneur Zalman in the Tanya, Shaar Hayichud VehaEmunah (The Gate To The Understanding of God's Unity and the Faith" Chapter 1, writes:

"Let us understand in a small measure, the statement...that Shema Yisrael...is yichuda ila'ah (higher-level Unity) and Baruch shen kvod malchuto leolam vaed is yichuda tata'ah ('lower-level unity)...

Here, Shneur Zalman is addressing the seeming dichotomy in Jewish thought that God is kadosh kadosh kadosh Adonai t'vaot milo kol aretz kivodo--"Holy is God who fills the whole universe" and the following line from the Kaddish--Baruch kavod Adonai mimkemo, "Blessed is the Lord's glory from his place."

Shneur Zalman is providing the foundation for nondual mystical Judaism in understanding the unity, the ratzo v'shov, the expanding and contracting mind, of our human perception.

In what seems like language that's a bit antiquated, here Shneur Zalman explains that EVERYTHING is God always and constantly:

"if the creative letters were to depart even for an instant, and return to their source all the heavens would be become naught...and so it is with all created things, in all the upper and lower wrolds and even this physical earth and the realm of the completely inanimate...even immobile beings which show no signs of animation harbors within it the Divine life-force."

The Tanya On The Importance of Nondualism

In the Tanya, Shneur Zalman writes:

"First among the factors that arouse love and awe, and their foundation, is a pure and faithful belief in the Unity and Oneness of God...'Oneness' here means that all of creation is united with/in God and utterly nullified to Him...just as one loves his soul and his life [higher and lower levels of consciousness], so will he love God when he meditates and reflects in his heart that God is his true soul and his ACTUAL life."

brackets, bold, and capital letters, mine

Chinuch Katan 19, 20, 36

Making Jokes/Finding Sparks: Kedushat Levi on T'rumah

I found the following passage interesting in terms of some of the pedagogical choices I make. Sometimes I feel a touch concerned that my students think that all we do is share stories and joke but in talking about the construction of the Tabernacle, Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev shares the following:

"These skins of 'Tachash' used as the outermost coverings of the 'roof' of the Tabernacle, symbolized the vernacular, secular, which though not valuable by itself, was put to good use as a cover, protection for the sacred content beneath the surface. In the the same way, sometimes people make remarks in a jocular fashion, but it is meant to make the [inner] substance of their remarks...more readily acceptable"

I thought this was beautiful and deep although I, and I think he, disagree with the idea that the exterior covering or the (secular) is not valuable in itself. In fact, later in the same analysis Levi Yitzchak writes:

"It is not permissible for us ever to claim that there exist phenomena in our universe that are totally apart from their holy roots. It is up to us to try and find behind phenomena that appear totally divorced from their holy roots, the point of contact through which such a thread, however slender, still exists...when we love God in this manner, we succeead in helping the 'sparks' return to their original habitat as part of the Shechinah."

So...how interesting! From my nondualist perspective, here is Levi Yitzchak acknowledging that all is One and that the process of tikkun, or repair, is the act of this realization that ALL IS SPARKS. This realization, of course, must come with action; in explaining the necessity of the voluntary gifts of gold, silver, and copper as described in this week's Torah portion, Levi Yitzchak states:

"Every person serving the Lord, must do so also by something tangible in addition to the lofty thoughts that he entertains...allegorically speaking the performance of a tangible mitzvah is considered as if man helps the Shechinah arise from the dust of the earth where it appeared to be buried."

Good shabbos.

Should I Be Angry About My Students' Procrastination?

So...this morning I arrived back at school to find my inbox filled with 21 messages from students who neglected to turn their papers into our school's electronic essay receiver on time. The excuses vary wildly, almost all of them implausible. It took me an hour and a half to tranfer all their documents from my inbox to our receiver.

Then I sat down to daven Shacharit. I thought a lot about oneness. And about ratzo v'shov. I started using the contemplative meditation, "This too, is a flavor of God." My anger, miraculously, started to fizzle. I felt open and clear. I said the Shema with true belief.

But then I was confused...isn't it "provisionally" or subjectively mindedly "true" to be angry? And isn't this "anger" also part of God? Aren't I creating dichotomies with this ratzo v'shov idea?

Then again, I thought, why anger? Anger is, again, a form of idolatry to the subjective...so why not just reprimand the students without anger...just tell them how to better plan their time, penalize their essays for lateness so that there's a consequence, but eliminate the need for anger, because is this equation, it is actually doing nothing except making it difficult for me to expand my consciousness and be the One.

My friend Haroot explained it this way: the emotions that you feel in the subjective (constricted mind) can be used as a way to access the expanded mind. For example, my anger led to prayer, which lead to the realization that the anger was unnecessary, though the consequences were (the late grades). In fact, I probably would have no reached the same level of openness had I not been so wedded to the constricted mind at first! This is a good lesson about the Oneness. There is no hierarchy, it's just that one can be used to realize the other. When one mind-set becomes TOO dominant, THAT is the place for practice. Thus, practice becomes the melding of the two mindsets in perfect harmony--sort of like a yin-yang symbol's twoness=oneness. When one part becomes most extreme, it manifests a kernal of the other; that kernal should serve as a reminder of balance and ratzo v'shov.

How Do I Discuss A Nondual God With My Children?

I've thought about this a lot. While I DO tell my son that God is everywhere and that he is the trees and the stars and his food etc...I sometimes find myself resorting to the old archetype. I found the following in Rabbi Schneur Zalman's Tanya, and it seems to be a promising compromise:

"Educate the child according to his way: even as he grows old he will not depart from it...Since the verse writes 'according to his way,' this implies that it is not the path of perfect truth, but merely a path to be followed by the child."

Introduction to Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah

This makes sense in that it doesn't advocate "lying," so much as speaking to a child in the language he or she understands...because children are mostly living in a constricted mind space, we use the language of the constricted mind.

Anger As Idolatry

I find this passage particularly helpful on a day to day basis. A problem arises, however, as to whether this idea robs us of NECESSARY anger regarding injustice...

"That there is no one to be angry with, and no one who grows angry, is akin to the Hasidic teaching that anger is a form of idolatry. When I am angry, it's as if I'm saying 'God is this way, but I reject It...' First there is the idolatry of creating a God out of preference: God has manifested as a traffic jam or an inconsiderate person, but I have a better idea about how God should look, and I'll worship that instead. Whereas the true God is YHVH: That which Is. And second, there is the idolatry of separation: God is this way, but I reject it, or feel angry about it. I separate from God."

Jay Michaelson Everything Is God p. 162

Perhaps an answer to the conflict I raised above is that righteous anger is not idolatrous. Here's how? When I get angry about a traffic jam, I'm mistaking a "constricted mind" or a "from our perspective" mind for an "expanded mind" or "from God's view" perspective. In other words, I'm praying to my own subjectivity. However, when I witness an injustice and seek to address it, or am angered by it, I am simply seeing the action from "God's Perspective." When actions that deny or obscure the oneness of God (bullying for instance) anger us, this is as it should be.

Another possibility is that anger has no place in the discussion at all once a nondual perspective is adopted. Why anger as opposed to conscious work for change? What IS anger?

Michaelson offers another prospective answer later in the book:

"To the extent that any of us continues to identify with our illusory selves, then obviously, we must still subscribe to the other 'illusions' of the relative world, distinction-based morality included. As the non-dualist sage Nisargadatta said, 'As long as you believe yourself to be in control, believe yourself to be responsible...' in the world of the relative, suffering exists and it is our job to transform it...the world may be perfect but it is up to you to make it better."

pp.205-206

The Tanya On The Results of Meditation

I studied this passage with my Rabbi when learning Tanya. We both were quite taken by it:

"When the intellect of the rational soul contemplates and immerses deeply in the greatness of God--how God fills all worlds and surrounds all worlds, in whose presence everything is considered as nothing--there is born and awakened in the mind a feeling of awe for the transcendent...Then his heart will be afire with an intense love, like burning coals, with desire, longing, and a passionate soul, for the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof. The is yearning of the soul."

Shneur Zalman of Liadi
Tanya, 14 Likkutei Amarim, Chapter 3

God's Revelation Does Not Depend On Content

"From the nondual perspective, R. Aharon might call this transformation on from 'our point of view,' one of smallness of mind, to 'God's point of view'--not because any new information is imparted, but because the clouding filters of the ego have been lessened...'God's point of view' does not depend of content...it is subtractive in nature; it is that from which the selfish perspective is removed...For the traditional Jew, what is left over when the self is taken away is Ein Sof, or God."

Jay Michaelson Everything is God pp. 159-160

A Contemplative Meditation for "bittul" from Thich Nhat Hanh

"If you are poet, you will see clearly that there isa cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper...If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. Without sunshine, the forest cannot grow...And if we continue to look, we can seek the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper...We cannot point out one thing that is not here-time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat...As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it."

Thinh Nhat Hanh Peace Is Every Step pp. 95-96

Contemplation Meditation Phrases for Bittul Ha-yesh

1. Everything happens as it must, not as it should.
2. God does not exist; God is existence itself.
3. "Ein Od Milvado"
4. ____________ is not a flaw in the system.
5. ____________ is a flavor of God
6. "Memaleh kol Almin": God fills all the worlds.
7. The present never ends.

"ratzo v'shov" -- Running and Returning Consciousness

"If religion consists of outward forms of piety, and spirituality inward experience, then nondual spiritual practice transcends and includes them both. We are not here searching for new and novel ways to get high; those are easy to find. Nor are we trying to rationalize a system of dogma and code. Rather, the purpose of practice is to bring wisdom and love to every moment, be it profound or profane. Of necessity, its motion will be of ratzo v'shov, running and returning between expanded mind and contracted mind, God's point of view and our own. Indeed, the hallmark of this practice will be an inclusion of both perspectives as aspects of the Divine. It will not make every moment a happy one, but it can bring about a clarity, an acceptance, and an intimacy which, for me, has long been the penumbra of God."

Jay Michaelson Everything Is God p. 152

Prioritizing Holiness

"What matters most should never be at the mercy of what matters least"
--Goethe

Why Practice Judaism If All Is One? Two Nice Responses...

"I love that the Jewish path can lead me to devekut. But I don't need to prove that devekut is better than samadhi."
Jay Michaelson Everything is God p. 126


"Jewish forms are neither superior nor necessary. But they are superior and necessary for me because they are the vocabulkary of my heart and the technology of my body. The 'benefit' of nonduality is ending the tyranny of the egoic illusion and awakening the truth. The 'benefit' of Judaism is responding to that truth with acts of love and devotion; integrating it into a culture, community, and ethical tradition and naming it God. The world of yitzirah, the domain of the heart, needs its forms, its faces."
Jay Michaelson Everything is God p. 4

All Is God: The Radical Path of Non-dual Judaism

Here are several consecutive passages from Jay Michaelson's amazing book. It does a fine job of stating the theological and philosophical approach that I take in Judaism.




"The heart knows two even when the mind knows one. We are Ein Sof, but we are also the sefirot, also humans, also animals."

Mei Hashiloach/"Go To Yourself"

God's "Lech L'cha" (Genesis 12:1) command to Avraham is usually understood to be directional or geographic; he is supposed to begin a journey. But the grammar of the command "go to yourself," or "go for yourself," has inspired much commentary fro Hasidic masters. Here's one I love from the Isbitza Rebbe's Torah commentary, Mei Hashiloach ("Living Waters").

I also like that he says that the pleasures of this world are not without use and are not in any way "evil." There's no body/spirit dichotomy here. The pleasures are there to relieve anxiety; he's simply asking what's to do or be after the anxiety is gone.

"Avraham Avinu began to investigate and seek after the own source of his life, for he realized that it is inconceivable that all the lusts of this world could be called true life, for all this-worldly desires and lusts only serve to remove the numerous anxieties and obstacles we face. Then once all the anxieties have been negated, what will be the true core of life upon which the world was created? Conecrning this the blessed God said to him 'lech l'cha,' move yourself forward, meaning to yourself, to your true source, for truly all the matters of this world cannot be termed "life,' and the main point of life you should find in yoursel...this is The life."--

Ishbitzer Rebbe on Lech L'cha