So if the human intellect united with the form of G-d, wouldn't they share the same function? I mean, assuming the human's thought and behavior are in harmony, wouldn't the human be behaving as G-d, albeit with their material/human limitations? And then wouldn't humanity be something like G-d's thought realized in matter? I love your channel and this was a particularly great video! Amazing food for thought! 🙂
Even though I’m still struggling to put groceries in the refrigerator. I STILL TRUST YOU LORD! Faith is trusting in God durning hard times. Faith is what is getting me through my hard situation. I’m still struggling to providing for my two autistic children since losing my job over declining the vaccine. I declined due to my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and Heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption from Forsyth Hospital. My husband passed away three years ago, so I’m all alone. Both of my sons are non verbal so things are more hard on me. Every month I don’t know how we are going to make it through. Every month is a struggle, a battle to not end up on the streets. I’m so depressed and embarrassed by my situation. I’ve been put down and mocked over my circumstances. I’m so ashamed and overwhelmed. BUT because of my faith God shows up every month and provides. He has even sent strangers to help me, thank you Father. Even as I face homelessness with two young children seemingly every month! I know that God will provide abundantly. Thank you Jesus. I BELIEVE!
The concepts of an "Idea" & the "knowledge of a thing" had me for a loop... for a sec.😏 This is not my first rodeo on doing mental-gymnastics on delving in esoteric ideas...😅
Thank you for sharing all this knowledge with everyone and explaining it so clearly. You’re very generous with your time and I appreciate you answering questions. Mine is this: When referring to the Maimonides’ practice of connecting and having similar qualities with God, you use the word “obsessively” when describing their relationship to the practice. It’s a question that I often ask myself. I don’t understand why i am so drawn to practicing such prayers and to receiving such bliss. Although I feel complete and blessed with joy, I still find myself “obsessed” with the practice and it makes me doubtful of my approach. I guess what I’m asking is, am I just obsessed with the feeling of closeness and joy? Have i grown addicted to a simple release of Dopamine? Or does it always become and obsession? Thank you!
29:35 This is a fantastic joke in the middle of a very serious discussion on an important--and not unresolved--philosophical subject. I laughed and rewound the video to watch it again.
Beautiful. The part about increasing providence is reminiscent of the ideas of מ"ן and מ"ד in the works of the Arizal. By our arousal from below we effect a corresponding arousal from above, thus completing the work of creation by revealing the underlying Unity. Great content as always. ברכות
Some caution here, since arousal is caused by external factors and the Eagle is using our interface with providence as an argument for free choice, there is a substantial disanalogy at face value. Or you may have uncovered a flaw in the syllogism, an equivocation on our response to hearing the glad news that we can unite with the active intelligence and that the hearing is a causing and thus we are objects in the causal stream of the divine overflow and not autonomous subjects. Perhaps hearing causes motivation and that motivation is irresistible: it is a divine motivation. Is the future real? Time will tell.
Thank you Steve. That’s a very meaningful compliment coming from you. I’ve been a fan of your work for some time now. Thank you for all you’ve done to inspire us independent scholars.
A wonderful exposition...and from the point of view of a seeker of unity ...innerly and across traditions...this is the crux of the psth of knowledge. Although he is using Greek/ Aristotlian metaphysics he morphs into vedantin ...a rishi...a yogi. He reaches us across the centuries.
Everytime Maimonides is discussed or I read the Guide, my level of synchronicity goes through the roof. A wonderful and brilliantly explained discussion of his theory of knowledge ^_^
Great video, as always! I recently published a set of 31 daily contemplations and this videos reminds me of one of them called Love: When we contemplate God, we are a lover loving our beloved, but, eventually, subject and object dissolve and unite, so that lover and beloved are gone and all that remains is Love. The separation of subject and object is always ultimately an illusion but love is real.
22nd to like! Thank you for the illuminating discussion! The idea that the divine thinking of me was thereby one with me has induced mystical experiences since i was a child. if after all, if the divine thinks they are one with me who am i to disagree? this led very quickly to the thought that the divine was thinking likewise of my neighbour and thus the unity of all of us through the unity of the divine thought of us. this led me to a radical reinterpretation of the love for your neighbour that is the love for yourself that is the love of the divine. however, no one has agreed with me so far. too morally demanding i am told. but if "with YH YHVH the universes are formed" then what other way is there? Much love!
You should cover the Left-Hand Path. Kind of antithetical to the whole “Seekers of Unity” theme but I’d like to hear your thoughts on the Other Side of mysticism.
It would seem to me that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would agree that God's cognition cognizes matter. Moreover, he seems to hold that the material world itself is, in the mind of God, the analogue of His own existence. The world's existence can only seem to be necessray and uncaused because God's being IS in fact necessary and uncaused.
8:45 That's because the sensory organs are operating in a vessel modality whereas apphresion is a conduit modality. The vessel modality has a tangible stopping point, a base or a hub which houses the subject in question. Whereas the conduit is carrying energy or information from one place to another, yet no vessel exists to house. Obviously both modalities are closely connected, but they are two different things. The stream of water falling into the cup vs the cup itself. They are closely connected, but one is a conduit and the other is a vessel.
We understand that a conduit, such as a straw can share in the qualities of a vessel in some respects. That's why they are closely related. But they have different powers and weaknesses. If something were to become stuck in the straw, it is no longer a conduit but a vessel. But depending on the objects used, the conduit will be destroyed if it's clogged. But a stream of water falling into a cup is doing so by external forces like gravity or inertia or the polar attraction of the fluid itself to maintain its form roughly, as it falls. As opposed to spraying into a mist so that none may fall into the cup. But even if it sprays as a mist, such is only done because of external pressures like wind. Knowledge and apprehension are similar. They require flowing, but are affected by external winds (social influences) And without holy vessels to house the Knowledge, we cannot hold the information or use it in any meaningful way. I think a mentally insane person falls into this category. He is apprehending information, but it is typically irrelevant or out of context. He is not stupid, he is insane. Big difference.
One should point out that Maimonides holds the view that God know the world as he knows Hinself. As such, if one unites with God, he is, at the same time, hniting with the world. This parallels the Hassidic and generally Qabbalistic notion of Ratzo vaShov.
I've started watching some of your videos and I am really amazed by the amount of knowledge and effort you put into these. I wouldn't even know where to begin researching this stuff. I was raised in evangelical Christianity but I gave it up and began my own search a few years ago after going through some difficult times personally and spiritually. Do you have any advice for people who are trying to start researching mysticism? Maybe some book recommendations? I've started reading a book on Sufism and another that is supposed to provide an overview of mystical traditions around the world. I've also been trying to get into some philosophy and understand the more rational side of mysticism but admittedly a lot of it still goes over my head. Either way, thank you so much for creating such informative and enlightening videos.
Hey friend. Thanks for joining us. We put out this top ten book list and i think it’s still a helpful place to start: Top 10 Books to Read on Mysticism ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Fi9f11LVPHc.html Enjoy, Zevi
Be-reshit could be translated to : By a thought... For hebrew and arabic speakers, Reshit is related to a Summet and so, the Head. Reshit is a production from the Head. Be reshit doesn't mean directly "at the begining". About Abulafia, I heard that he worked on Letter's meaning, I'm interested by this topic, linguistic one. So your problem : how to think the thinking ? By its language. ;)
Which of your vids, do you think gives the best description of what Mysticism is? Also which for Rationalism too. I'm going to ask Filip & Justini too I think I am on the edge of a small revelation :D
You might find these two helpful: What is Mysticism? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xziekmekans.html Maimonides the Rational Mystic? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z-GpetIEpQw.html Enjoy
There are other issues with the idea of pantheism under the Rambam's metaphysics. Running with the unification of the knower and known, the form of the world is changing. If Hashem is completely unified with the form of the world, that puts Hashem in flux to the same degree the universe is, which the Rambam flatly rejects. This is what motivates the idea of the active intellect only cognizing unchanging universals. Which the Rambam flatly rejects with his nominalism, i.e., there are only individuals and sets of individuals. This also motivates determinism, i.e, that the deity is not in flux because all time is set in some sort of unchanging 4 dimensional crystal that just exists. Which of course the Rambam flatly rejects. The Rambam meant it when he said you can't know the mind of Hashem, and attempts to cram the Rambam into some sort of pantheist box on the basis of claimed knowledge of the mind of Hashem is an error right out of the gate.
Avatars can be created in three different ways; the first is through the power of the being itself, which removes a shard from its body and uses it as an avatar (ex: Jesus Christ). The second is through parental gametes, where the deity creates a physical avatar that is born as a "average person", but still exists as the alternate persona of their true self (ex: Norea and Krishna). And the third is when an entity can transform another being into an avatar, linking the two through their essence (ex: Grim Reaper). The manifest embodiment is sometimes referred to as an incarnation. The translation of avatar as "incarnation" has been questioned by Christian theologians, who state that an incarnation is in flesh and imperfect, while avatar is mythical and perfect. Normally, to create Avatar Beings, deities usually take a shard of their own body. However, other beings such as angels or demons when going to use physical forms (image avatars) they do not use their own body, since being spiritual, taking a shard of equal essence would not allow the interaction of the physical world. To create their physical avatars, angels and demons use ectoplasm to create their vessels. However, although there are two types of avatars, God seems to have created a system of avatars specifically for Him, which are Name Avatars. These avatars are different faces that God uses in Creation, each being the embodiment of one of His thousands of names. These avatars include, but are not limited to, Yahweh, Jehovah, YHVH, Shekhinah, Allah (in Islam), Elohim, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, Sabaoth, and Yaldabaoth (in gnosticism). These specific avatars are incarnations of divine attributes (with the exception of Yaldabaoth) of the Almighty. These avatars can be created by God in any universe, multiverse or megaverse, in Heaven and Hell, at any time, whether in the past, present and future.
You can't just unite with God intellectually simply because knowledge is always within the shadow of ignorance. God is not a cosmic puzzle or an elusive mathematical formula to be solved intellectually. You may connect partially with the immanent nature of God. For true unity with God, apophatic "knowing" is pivotal, acquiring wisdom through inner self reflection and meditation in order to be FREE of thoughts, which will then facilitate realisation of the TRUTH and help cultivate unconditional LOVE.
Hello, I discovered your channel today and I would like to tell you briefly that I am not Jewish, but I am very interested in Judaism in GENERAL. My question now is, how are non-Jews supposed to unite with the Mind of God if non-Jews are not allowed to learn the Torah (even Maimonides said that non-Jews are only allowed to learn the 7 Commandments, i.e. no Kaballa, Mystic,..etc.)? I very much hope that you can answer my question, because I actually want to learn the word of God, but according to this religion it is not officially allowed (according to Maimonidis, Talmud,..etc). How can I walk a path that the supreme power, the Creator, does not allow me to walk? Best regards
Hi friend, welcome to the channel. I recommend watching the latest video in this series which charts something of a different path: The Riddle at the End of the Guide for the Perplexed ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-g7eeJ5LZQQo.html Yours, Zevi
Have you read the work of Vladimir Smhakov? If you would like a roughly translated version of one of his books I can send you a PDF. His book is incredible, up there with the Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.
but if the divine knows all, then the divine is finished thinking. we only think about what we do not yet know, as in cognitive processes do not activate unless there is a need to intervene. it follows that if the divine thinks it is only because there is something it does not yet know. so while the divine might know us and be united to the objects of its knowledge, the idea of an active thinking intellect seems at odds with omniscience. maybe i am missing something here? and if the divine is beyond spacetime, how could there be anything it cannot yet know. But if the divine is spacetime or within spacetime, reality would be at most a self-signalling system with no claim to providence in principle (obviously we can imagine all sorts of coincidences to our benefit if we look for it, sharpshooter fallacy and all.) if anyone can see what is wrong with this destructive dilemma, i would be happy to be wrong.
I know it is bad form to reply to yourself but the joke on me is meta. After a recollection ritual, I remembered that i brought this argument up ages ago in undergrad class on Aristotle and the prof replied that it was divine pleasure in thinking and as such was overflow that trickled down the chain of being. i could not help but laugh since the idea struck me as exemplary of academic philosophy at large being intellectual masturbation. the prof asked me why it was funny and i told the class. i was not so politely asked to refrain from participating further in class. Decades later I learned from Dr. Sledge that some of the Kabbalahists agree with my assessment but see it as a positive. I am curious if the prof did as well and my laughing was taken to be sacrilegious. So many of my undergrad profs were into the mystic arts it was not funny. Especially the languages profs. Did i ever learn too many 'prayers' from my latin and greek profs that were heterodox to say the least! The world is so weird some times!
Great video as always, but some parts of it left me confused. Could you please tell me what you meant by this statement! "According to Aristotle and comes into existence only when there is something that it is cognizing therefore according to Aristotle the intellect can have no nature of its own, for it is nothing but, the knowledge of the object is cognizing, unlike our senses where our eyes and ears continue to exist. Even if we're not at the moment hearing, or seeing anything. The intellect with no material substance of its own does indeed cease to exist when it isn't thinking of something the intellect is simply the function of thinking about something, taking on the shape of the thing it's thinking about and in the absence of thinking anything there simply is no intellect to speak of" 8:20
Thank you friend. Sure, it's just a basic statement of Aristotle's theory of knowledge as found in his De Anima 3.4-5. Check out these sources for more explanation: plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ (section 7 'Mind') and faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/433/AristotleThinking.pdf
thank you again! this distinction between 'unio mystica' and 'uniting intellectually with the divine' is a bit strange to me... what is the difference? this intellectual unity is something like 'luminous mind' in buddhism? would you be so kind to explain it?
You're most welcome. I think one way of distinguishing them is asking, what is being united in this union. Different types on union will be aimed at uniting different aspect and elements. So for the Neoplatonists for example, it's more than just the mind of the human that's uniting and the unity is taking place with more than just the 'mind of God.' Philip Merlan's 1998 Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness: Problems of the Soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition, is really the classic study of that question in this context.
