For me it so happened that
I that I started reading the Ari (Isaac Luria רבינו האריז''ל).
And after about a year I made Aliya to Israel
and then I did a lot of personal
conversation with God while hiking in the forests surrounding Safed in the
north of Israel].
I spent most of my time in a forest. And then I got something that you could call Devykut. Devykut means literally "attachment with God."
But outside of the subject of of this devykut, I would like to defend the Arizal [Isaac Luria--known by the short name the Ari] here in a philosophical way.
The system of the Ari is Neo Platonic. That is is assumes a very Neo Platonic system, and then develops it in great detail based on the personal insights of the Ari himself-not on reasoning or logic.
But what makes it particularly interesting is the fact that it looks like Plato was right. I mean let's looks at the rival schools of thought. The rationalist-- the antimonies of Kant demonstrated well the fallacy of rationalism.
The empiricists. There are a few well known simple proofs that empiricism is wrong. [See Michael Huemer's counter examples like you know an object can not be blue and green in the same place at the same time.] Also Twentieth century philosophy is problematic. In the famous words of John Searle [at University of California, Berkeley], Post modern philosophy and all the analytic linguistic approach is "Obviously false". Just by default alone you are stuck with Hegel or Kant. At this point I rest my case. In either case you are dealing with a neo Platonic approach.
[Well I am not exactly done. I am not very happy with Hegel. But I would rather not go into that right now. And Kant many people associate with the Neo-Kant School. And that is definitely not Neo Platonic. {They also do not think we can know if the Ding An Sich exists, and that is not Kant who wrote that we do know it exists--but its character is modified by our subjective input.}
[It would be possible to argue with me that the Ari and Neo-Platonism do put a large degree of confidence in reason--much more than Kant. I assume this is why many Jews like were happy enough to go along with Hegel.
[On a side note I might mention that there is another system of Kabala of Avraham Abulafia which Moshe Idel did some work on. And I should let people know that in university when people talk about Kabala they are usually talking about Avraham Abulafia, or some other Medieval system [like the "Heichalot"] and not Rav Isaac Luria. [These are relatively unsophisticated systems.] When people in the religious world talk about Kabalah, they usually means three specific people: the Zohar, Moshe Cardovaro and Isaac Luria. There is in fact almost no intersection between University Kabalah and Isaac Luria Kabalah.
There are a few different approaches to I. Luria. The best I think is Shalom Sharabi from Yemen. But there is also a good approach of the Ramchal [Moshe Chaim Lutzatto]. These are both very sophisticated approaches].
Kabalah in the Ashkenaic world after the events surrounding Shabati Tzvi are filled with interpretations from Natan his disciple. Of all Ashkenazim, only the Gra is clean. The rest of the books take the system of Shabati Tzvi in Kabalah -- but the problem is the system itself is wrong and from the Sitra Achra.
When people think they are reading holy books of Kabalah, they are getting a heavy dose of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) when they read Ashkenazic Kabalah.
I spent most of my time in a forest. And then I got something that you could call Devykut. Devykut means literally "attachment with God."
But outside of the subject of of this devykut, I would like to defend the Arizal [Isaac Luria--known by the short name the Ari] here in a philosophical way.
The system of the Ari is Neo Platonic. That is is assumes a very Neo Platonic system, and then develops it in great detail based on the personal insights of the Ari himself-not on reasoning or logic.
But what makes it particularly interesting is the fact that it looks like Plato was right. I mean let's looks at the rival schools of thought. The rationalist-- the antimonies of Kant demonstrated well the fallacy of rationalism.
The empiricists. There are a few well known simple proofs that empiricism is wrong. [See Michael Huemer's counter examples like you know an object can not be blue and green in the same place at the same time.] Also Twentieth century philosophy is problematic. In the famous words of John Searle [at University of California, Berkeley], Post modern philosophy and all the analytic linguistic approach is "Obviously false". Just by default alone you are stuck with Hegel or Kant. At this point I rest my case. In either case you are dealing with a neo Platonic approach.
[Well I am not exactly done. I am not very happy with Hegel. But I would rather not go into that right now. And Kant many people associate with the Neo-Kant School. And that is definitely not Neo Platonic. {They also do not think we can know if the Ding An Sich exists, and that is not Kant who wrote that we do know it exists--but its character is modified by our subjective input.}
[It would be possible to argue with me that the Ari and Neo-Platonism do put a large degree of confidence in reason--much more than Kant. I assume this is why many Jews like were happy enough to go along with Hegel.
[On a side note I might mention that there is another system of Kabala of Avraham Abulafia which Moshe Idel did some work on. And I should let people know that in university when people talk about Kabala they are usually talking about Avraham Abulafia, or some other Medieval system [like the "Heichalot"] and not Rav Isaac Luria. [These are relatively unsophisticated systems.] When people in the religious world talk about Kabalah, they usually means three specific people: the Zohar, Moshe Cardovaro and Isaac Luria. There is in fact almost no intersection between University Kabalah and Isaac Luria Kabalah.
There are a few different approaches to I. Luria. The best I think is Shalom Sharabi from Yemen. But there is also a good approach of the Ramchal [Moshe Chaim Lutzatto]. These are both very sophisticated approaches].
Kabalah in the Ashkenaic world after the events surrounding Shabati Tzvi are filled with interpretations from Natan his disciple. Of all Ashkenazim, only the Gra is clean. The rest of the books take the system of Shabati Tzvi in Kabalah -- but the problem is the system itself is wrong and from the Sitra Achra.
When people think they are reading holy books of Kabalah, they are getting a heavy dose of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) when they read Ashkenazic Kabalah.
