| Joy of Charity Essays | | ||
| www.joyoflife.org.il |
The problem of evil might better be called "the problem of problems." That there is "evil" in the world can be expressed most generally by saying that there are problems with the way things are, that at least something is not the way it should be. I shall propose that the various possible resolutions of the problem of evil correspond to varying approaches that people generally take to the problems in their lives. In this way, a connection can be made between the problem of evil as discussed by professional philosophers - a problem concerning the consistency of beliefs - and the problem as often discussed by other writers - a problem concerning the proper response to the "evil" that we find around and within us. In the course of demonstrating the parallel between the philosophical and the practical problem, I shall elaborate on the contrasting points of view of exoteric and esoteric religion, and I shall conclude with an attempt to explain why the problem remains a problem.
First, let me present the problem from its philosophical side. The statement that something is not the way it should be seems to contradict the statement that God is omnipotent and completely beneficent.
Certainly, statements (1), (2), and (3) cannot all be true:
Yet many people are inclined to accept each of (1), (2), and (3) as true. They have a problem - namely, what I am calling "the problem of problems." To resolve the problem, they must deny the truth of at least one of the three statements and, of course, must make any necessary adjustments elsewhere in their system of beliefs. (To avoid the problem would not thereby resolve it.)
Resolutions of the problem can thus be grouped into three categories: those that deny (1); those that deny (2); and those that deny (3). This categorization is not all that helpful, however, since divergent points of view will be grouped together in one category due to differing interpretations of statements (1), (2), and (3). In particular, the expressions: ‘should' in (1); ‘God', ‘omnipotent', and ‘completely beneficent' in (2); and ‘(1)' and ‘(2)' in (3) - all require explication.
Furthermore, the three choices I have listed are not mutually exclusive, because it is possible to deny more than one of the three statements. It must also be kept in mind that a denial of a statement can be based either on the assertion of its negation or on the claim that it is neither true nor false. Thus, it would be a formidable, if not impossible, task to list all the logically possible resolutions, even just in terms of statements (1), (2), and (3) (leaving aside varying adjustments of other beliefs), when taking into account their possible interpretations and all the combinations of their assertions and denials.
Logic is one approach to metaphysics. Mysticism is another. Rather than by a list of logical possibilities, resolutions of the problem of problems can be categorized according to their correspondence with varying levels of reality. This will be my approach, but first I must digress on the subject of levels of reality.
Although the concept of levels of reality has become quite foreign to the modern mind, from the point of view of mystical philosophy, no metaphysical issue can be understood without it. This is primarily because the true answer to any metaphysical question will vary according to the level from which the issue is viewed. There is an absolute truth, but it cannot be translated into the language of the lower levels. Thus, even a so-called "higher truth" will not be true from a lower level from which it is considered, because it will necessarily be altered in the process of being brought down to that level. (We will see examples of this later.)
A rough analogy can be made using stages of life in place of levels of reality. Let us think of being middle-aged as a "higher" stage of life and assume for the sake of illustration that soybean is the best source of protein for the middle-aged. It still may be true that, for the very young, milk, and not soybean, is the best source of protein. What is nourishing (or true) at one level may not be so at another. This makes for a rather slippery game of catching the truth and partly accounts for the disrepute that has befallen the concept of levels of reality in a world where people just want to know the facts.
One may be able to get a hint of what it is like to experience a movement to a higher level of reality than the ordinary, terrestrial plane by calling to mind those times when the pattern of one's experience has been altered in such a way that cause-effect relationships have become more of a background phenomenon, an "accidental" feature of experience, while relationships based on feelings or meanings have come to the foreground of consciousness. Probably everyone has had at least a fragment of such an experience. Just as in a novel, where the proximity in the text of two otherwise unrelated events can help to convey a deeper theme than the story line, so one can see at such times the necessity for the relative position in space and time of things that ordinarily seem completely unconnected.
It is possible that "just by chance" one will get a three on twenty consecutive rolls of the die, but when it actually happens, we would do well to check the die. Similarly, coincidences in life point us toward purposive explanations. When you consider the unusual rolls of the die together with the odd look in the eye of the fellow who handed it to you and the vague warning of your friend about dealing with this fellow, and then you see the whole story in a new light - this is analogous to a first glimpse of a non-ordinary level of reality.
A simple example on the psychic plane, the level of feeling, would be when, after hours of worry and depression, a sudden insight brings a ray of hope and at that very moment the sun bursts through the clouds for the first time that day. A mere coincidence? Perhaps. But less plausibly so when the relationship is immediately perceived (that is, not consciously inferred), and when all of one's experience takes on this character. It is this immediacy of perception and complete repatterning of experience that justifies calling this an entry into another "world" or "level of reality." Within the psychic plane, one senses the psychic entity whose presence causes both the ray of hope and the appearance of the sun.
Reading or hearing of the lives of mystics who are wholly caught up in non-ordinary modes of experiencing can enable us to extrapolate from our own much more limited adventures in this area; and so enable us to see the latter as changes in the mind's filtering process in the direction of less filtering and more immediate perception of the one Reality that is the theoretical endpoint of this extrapolation. (Perhaps for mystics even the endpoint is experiential.) The rule appears to be that at higher or non-ordinary levels, one is less aware of oneself as perceiver; for example, the perceived relationships will be less defined by way of one's own feelings and more in terms of objective "meanings."
A convincing illustration of experiencing at the higher level of the celestial plane, the world of meanings, is difficult to present simply, because the quality of objectivity of the meanings is difficult to convey. Perhaps this will do at least to clarify the intended concept: On the way to Jerusalem, the city of holiness, you find yourself breathing sulfur at the shores of the Dead Sea, the lowest spot on Earth. It is immediately obvious to you that this is an instantiation of the principle that spiritual heights are reached via the pits,1 and at the same time it is clear how in a hundred similar ways this principle has been continually shaping your life. However, the meaning that is attached to Jerusalem and the Dead Sea is independent of your feelings about these places, so that an awareness of your perception of the situation is not necessary in order to define it.
When every feature of life, however large or small, is thus seen to be shaped by the "meanings" that constitute higher realities on up to the One, it will then appear that everything is exactly as it must be. What is particularly to the point here is that judgments of good and bad are absent in the experience of higher levels. They are replaced by the perception of things participating in varying proportions in two tendencies: the tendency toward the Infinite, a distillation of the essential stripped of its limiting forms; and the tendency toward the finite, a condensation into the material mold. However, the attractiveness of the first tendency makes it retain something of the quality of goodness, unless by virtue of one's own participation in the distillation process, even the distinction between these two tendencies fades away toward a unity that admits of no opposites. The level of the Infinite is the level of this unity, the level of being.
These brief remarks are intended, only as a beginning, to dispel an understandable suspicion that the concept of levels of reality is a philosopher's fiction with no possible basis in experience. The reader is encouraged to turn to Huston Smith's Forgotten Truth [New York: Harper & Row 1976] for a much more satisfactory depiction of the four-world hierarchy - that is, the terrestrial, psychic, and celestial planes, and the Infinite - with attention to certain subtleties that would be too great a digression here. For a contemporary Jewish statement of the traditional four-world hierarchy, see Adin Steinsaltz's The Thirteen Petalled Rose [New York: Basic Books, 1980].
Actually, although reality may be seen to come in degrees, it is somewhat artificial to cut it up into definable layers. As Rabbi Steinsaltz writes, "the various worlds interpenetrate and interact in such a way that they can be considered counterparts of one another, each reflecting or projecting itself on the one below or above it, with all the modifications, changes, and even distortions that are the result of such interaction" (p. 3). Experience does not come neatly pre-packaged, and our conceptual arrangement of it is only to serve some limited purpose or other.
In fact, the hierarchy that I shall present for the purpose of understanding the problem of problems separates the terrestrial plane into two levels and the level of the Infinite into three - thereby distinguishing a total of seven levels. The following story illustrates these levels. The number of each paragraph in the story is the number of a level in the ensuing discussion.
I.
Once, a very long time ago, there was a jungle.
II.
In the jungle was a village. The people in the village knew the nature around them very well. They knew the best way to get from here to there with hardly a moment's thought. They could find with ease objects they had hidden in the jungle even years ago. From a flight of birds and a squeal of monkeys, they could locate a lion's kill a half-day's walk in the distance, and by such signs they knew when and where to find what they wanted. But some seasons many herds would pass by, and other times there would be few. The people wondered at this, and they debated the reasons for such mysterious changes and how they could best be sure to get enough food and hides and whatever else they needed.
III.
Once, when the herds were few and the water was high, down the river came many very large canoes. No-one in the village had ever seen such large canoes before, though they knew the nearby peoples on the river and had heard stories of big canoes on the river in the time of the ancients. The people were brave and approached the bank of the river. The leader of the canoes came ashore to greet them. He was taller than they and wore a long robe, white and shining in glaring contrast to the dark jungle green. He explained that he was a messenger from the king. This was a great wonder to the people, for none of them even knew they had a king. Some had heard stories of a king in ancient times, but those were ancient times - and only stories. The messenger said that the king in his wisdom was creating a path through the jungle. He was sent to tell the people, so that if they saw strange movements in the jungle, they would know why and need not fear. So the people understood that the king governed their domain and that the lack of herds in that season was because the king's workers were in the jungle. They saw that the king was powerful, and they didn't think to question why the king had decided to create the path, for they were sure it had little to do with them. But they did want to know whether there was any way they could gain the king's favor. So they questioned the messenger about where he came from. They were awed to hear of the size and grandeur of the king's world, where everything and everyone was carefully ordered in every detail.
IV.
After reflection on this, Hashav, one of the more adventurous young people in the village, began to wonder why such a great king would send a messenger to a tiny village such as this. Perhaps despite its small size and large distance from the king, the village still might be part of the king's concern. This idea became more evident once the path was completed. Then Hashav saw how his people benefited from trade with travelers from the king's city. He questioned these travelers about the king's activities and thus learned of the king's true nobility and justice.
V.
After a period of several years, having gradually acquired a finer appreciation of the king's nature, Hashav developed a longing to travel to the king's city. Even with the path, it was difficult to find the way, because he was often deceived and distracted by this unfamiliar territory in the jungle. Several times he would have gone completely astray if he had not remembered the stories of the travelers. Finally he arrived. At first, it was difficult to adjust to the grace and harmony with which affairs were conducted within the city. After a while, though, the city's charm overcame him, so that he could hardly believe there was any other way to live. The village was an impossible dream. As Hashav's movements became more in accord with the precise orchestration of the city life, he gradually found his way to the castle. Eventually, he was even permitted to enter the king's court, and - what's more - he actually stood in the presence of the king himself. Then Hashav began to imagine what it would be like to be the king. Before, the king's inner life was completely hidden from him. Though he had become somewhat familiar with the king's world, still it was always viewed with the eyes of a villager. Now that his vision had become less narrow, Hashav was able to view the king's world from its own perspective, which ultimately would mean from the perspective of the king himself.
VI.
Having been thus transformed, Hashav was now prepared to bring his new self to his old home. Before reentering the village on his return from the king's city, Hashav perched himself in a tree on the outskirts of the village in order to lose himself in his imaginings. He allowed himself to take on the king's nature, and as he did so, he looked down upon the village and saw his people busy doing the things they had to do to fulfill their needs. He saw that, as the king, he had the power to affect whatever they were doing in whatever way he wanted. So it was really his choice that they do exactly what they were doing in exactly the way they were doing it. Hashav realized, as he slowly withdrew back into being Hashav, that the village was as carefully orchestrated as the heart of the king's city - that, even in the village, it was possible to stand in the presence of the king. Indeed, the king's greatness demanded that this be so - that his presence be equally available everywhere. With this realization, Hashav smiled and miraculously found himself within his home within the village.
VII.
And the king continued to be the king.
The story begins with the jungle - life unaware. With no awareness, there are no problems. This is the level (level I) of those who say that ignorance is bliss. The village people (level II), however, are aware of possible improvements. They have problems, and they do their best to solve them by interacting with their physical environment according to their scientific understanding of it. Their attitude is expressed by the saying: "Where there's a will, there's a way." With the awareness of the king (God), comes the beginning of religion. Some of the previous unknowns from the scientistic perspective are now understood. More important, however, there is an acknowledgment of something more than the secular world. We see that we have been taking ourselves too seriously. This is the level (level III) of those who say: "So what if we have problems?" The recognition that "there's more" opens our feeling to outward flow and takes our mind away from the problems that were troubling us before. However, this is still a very unrefined religious outlook. It primarily consists of fear and awe of the power of God, His control of our lives being His most apparent feature. Its only insight is our creatureliness in comparison to the Creator.
Upon further reflection, one can see (as did Hashav) that God's presence in our world is not for His sake but for ours. This unprejudiced concern for every detail is His justice. The lack of herds is a problem, but it is caused by the path that will bring an even greater good. There is good and bad in the world, but the world is basically good. This is the level (level IV) of those who say that it all works out for the best in the end. Our problems are a result of a lack of understanding. We need to see the big picture.
But the big picture is still only a picture. The whole-hearted quest for truth must lead to a quest for transformation of being and entry into the king's world. This is the level (level V) of those who say that those who have eyes will see that there really are no problems. We must learn to harmonize. Life is music. Listen, and your own part will naturally flow from you without any difficulty.
Beyond the level of seeking transformation, there is attainment and integration with life on Earth. This is the level (level VI) of Moses, who after ascending the mountain, was able to descend to the level of the people without losing any closeness to God. In connection with this level, Maimonides says of Moses that he could be occupied even with his bodily necessities while his intellect was wholly turned toward God (The Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter 5). And as Aaron ben Moses, the chief disciple of the founder of Habad Hasidism, has said [as explained by Louis Jacobs in Reb Aaron: Seeker of Unity (New York: Basic Books, 1966, p. 108], this is not just a realization that from God's point of view there is nothing but God, but even here on Earth, from the point of view of revelation, this is an annihilation of all worlds that appear as something apart from God. It is not just that there are really no problems; there do not even appear to be problems, because the very distinction between a problem and a non-problem has collapsed into their single source. Since there do not even appear to be problems, there can be no approach to them that corresponds to this level. This is a reality completely without values, giving no guidance whatsoever. [See The Guide to the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter 51.] Only when viewed from a lower level, this level may appear to provide an approach to problems. So while the zen archer does not check his shot's result for he sees no significant difference between hitting the target and missing it, we note that he hits the center every time.
We have just seen how each level has a corresponding general approach to problems. Moving from level II up to V, we have what can be called the technological, emotional, intellectual, and metaphysical approaches. However, given the above-mentioned intermixing of levels, the correspondence between a level and its general approach to problems will not be that strict. With an important qualification, each level will acknowledge that different approaches to problems will be appropriate in different situations. Just as it would be inappropriate to create a revolution for the purpose of obtaining justice on a parking ticket (even when a revolution is necessary for other reasons), so, for example, it would be inappropriate to work toward a transformation of being as a solution to the annoyance of a dripping tap. Even at level V, wisdom would dictate that when the tap drips, you can tighten it. You need not get involved in something else, understand it, or harmonize with it. The important qualification here is that each level in terms of its central approach tends to upgrade the levels below it and to downgrade the levels above it. I shall elaborate on this in relation to levels IV and V since they are the levels of the religious perspective.
Level IV can be equated with exoteric religion. It looks at level II (doing) as the struggle to do what God want us to do. This is the physical work that is needed in order to fix this imperfect world. Level III (feeling) is seen from IV as the requirement to make God the center of our concern - not just to fear, but also to love Him. Level IV (thinking) sees itself as understanding the meaning of historical events. Thus, level V appears to IV, not as the realization that things really are good even now, but as the goal of IV - that is, as the level we shall reach in that future time when all will be good. To the extent that V appears to be more than the goal of IV, it will be criticized as other-worldly and/or quietistic. Or perhaps it will be seen as leading to a belief that sin should be pursued, for level V does not even consider sin a problem for God.
In fact, in the book Tomer Devorah (chapter 1, section 1), Moses Cordovero writes that God's greatness is most evident in His humility, and His humility can be seen from the fact that He permits sin, a sin always being an act against God. So the existence of sin, which implies that God actually supports the limbs and nourishes the body of the sinner, can be seen as the most powerful expression of God's greatness. Level VI, if it is acknowledged by IV at all, will at best be seen as completely mysterious. More likely, it will be considered heretical and therefore dangerous. In particular, it will seem indistinguishable from nihilism as it might appear at level II.
Level V is esoteric religion. It looks at the work of level II as what is needed to align the worlds of the hierarchy in order to allow a free flow from above to below. In other words, it strives to make manifest in the physical world the reality of the higher worlds. Level III is viewed by V as a sensitization of the emotions to metaphysical changes that occur amongst the forces in the higher worlds. Level IV appears to V as an attempt to understand all changes in relation to their single source. Level V looks at itself as seeking unity with this single source. The attainment of this goal of unity is level VI when seen from level V, although level VI does not see itself or anything else as a goal.
Or behavior at level VI may appear from level V to be a mistake - a movement away from enlightenment, not a completion of it. To illustrate this, we can consider the complaint of Miriam and Aaron against Moses as an instance of such a criticism. They accused Moses of not fulfilling the commandment to cohabit with his wife, the commandments having been given to everyone - the common person and, all the more so, those on the highest plane such as Moses. God tells them that Moses is a special case. As the commentary Meshekh Hokhmah says, Moses acts out of necessity, without free will to choose between good and evil. If he does something while at this level, it must be approved by God, for otherwise he could not have done it. Moses' apparent "transgression" was appropriate because he really was at such a level, not because he was trying to get there (and this is why such behavior cannot be imitated). Only from level VI itself can one distinguish between such an exception and a loss of awareness (such as Moses' lapse at the waters of Merivah).
We have been concentrating on the practical side of the problem of problems. With this preparation, we can now make some connections to its philosophical side. First, I shall categorize some resolutions of the problem by placing them within the hierarchy of levels. By now this placement should need no further explanation. Level I ignores the problem of problems. Level II denies statement (2), because from its point of view there is no God. Level III denies (2), because God is not completely beneficent. Level IV denies (3). For God to create a good world, He had to give us free will. Our misuse of this accounts for the problems ("evil") in the world. Level V denies (1), because really everything is the way it should be. Level VI denies (1), because there can be no such thing as something not being the way it should be (nor can there be something that is the way it should be). I shall not be so foolish as to attempt a comment on level VII.
In the previous section we discussed the tolerance (albeit limited) of each level to other approaches to problems. Is there a parallel tolerance to other philosophical resolutions of the problem of problems, so that, besides its central resolution of the problem, each level will give some acknowledgment to the resolutions of the other levels as well? At least some tolerance will certainly be allowed. For example, from the point of view of level IV , although it would be best if everyone were at level IV, still someone who is in fact at level II should believe the resolution of level II; that is, there is no point in deceiving oneself. It might even be added that the process of being honest with oneself will naturally lead one to the truth of level IV. This tolerance, however, seems much less than what we considered in the previous section, because there we did not just say that different approaches should be used by people at different levels. We said that, at each level, there are several approaches available.
But, on second thought, would there be a need to tighten the tap if we were completely involved in something else, or truly appreciated its place in the historical scheme of things, or fully experienced its metaphysical harmony? A complete understanding or complete transformation would no longer require any physical action to solve problems.
When the revolution is imminent, there is no need to handle the parking ticket in the usual way. The reason we could say before without qualification that each level acknowledges other approaches is that no level can be complete by itself (at least not any of II-V). Even in theory there are always phenomena that do not quite fit within the framework of an individual level (and in fact this is what eventually creates the impetus to move to a higher level). So a more complete statement of the approach to problems of level IV is that really what we need to do is to understand, but since our understanding is in fact limited, there are times when we should do physical action x or focus our feelings on y.
Does this mean that if we had complete understanding, we would not do the physical acts that God wants us to do? (Note that we have changed from the previous paragraph's "would there be a need" to "we would not do".) Since we cannot have complete understanding, this question is unanswerable. But in its place we can pose another question: Does greater understanding lessen the inclination to do these acts? The answer of course is "no," because greater understanding may consist only of greater appreciation of the relations among events. The insight into precisely how they lead to an ideal conclusion and the consequent certainty that this conclusion will be reached would still be lacking. So long as this remains a mystery, it will appear just as necessary to do things in order to make the world come out right. In addition, to the extent that we can imagine someone with the absolute, objective certainty that "the goal" will be reached - say, someone somehow assured of his place in paradise immediately after this Sabbath - we would not conceive of this person, despite his having no goal to strive for, as now at a loss regarding what to do - that is, whether to observe the Sabbath. He would be like Moses at level VI; he does what God wants him to do, but not as a solution to a problem. He does what God wants him to do, simple because that is the way someone at that level naturally behaves.
We can now see the parallel between the tolerance of each level to the approaches to problems of other levels and the tolerance of each level to the resolutions of the problem of problems of other levels.
For example, level IV will say that really what we should believe is that free will accounts for the truth of (1) and (2), but since we have doubts, we can speak of God being less present or less generous at some times than He is at others. We want to generalize from the usual experience of level IV, where misuse of free will is seen as the explanation for the existence of problems, but sometimes it is just so obvious that we do not see it that way, that we are forced to make sense of our experience even in terms of the viewpoint of lower levels - although the lower levels will naturally be "upgraded" when viewed from IV. Instead of saying that God does not exist, we say that at the moment He exists (so to speak) in another "place," not here. Instead of saying He is not completely beneficent, we assert that He is completely beneficent sub specie aeternitatis, but not all that beneficent right now. (Alternatively, we can leave unanswered the problem of problems with regard to phenomena that do not fit into the general resolution of our particular level of reality - just as one can leave practical problems unsolved. This is an upgrading of level I.)
Thus, we often pray that God's presence return and that He pour His generosity upon us. These concessions can be interpreted either as denials of (3) that provide explanations other than free will for the truth of (1) and (2); or they can be interpreted as denials of (2), when viewed with an eye to their similarity to the resolutions of levels II and III. In any event, since it is possible to deny both (2) and (3), there need be no contradiction within level IV. Level IV can even consistently draw from level V by claiming that God withholds our free will from time to time (as He will do throughout the period of the future paradise); but when this divine intervention creates problems, it is only the appearance of problems.2 We see the influence of level VI when it is said that God's actions cannot be judged by our understanding of right and wrong.
The essential resolution of level IV remains the denial of (3) based on the assertion of the existence of free will. The additional resolutions are consistent with this, but they explain those phenomena that free will seemingly cannot explain. With greater clarity of vision, we may later be able to see at least some of these recalcitrant phenomena as fitting directly within the framework of the free will explanation of the existence of problems. But then perhaps other phenomena will come along that will not accord with this latest vision, and so the ad hoc explanations will have to be appealed to again. This process can only be ended by a movement to a higher world, centering on a wholly different framework. Then, at this higher level, a similar process will unfold.
This explains why the problem of problems has persisted. If there is an end to our spiritual journey, a final resolution will come only then. It may be that arrival at level VI constitutes such an end; or there may be a lack even in this unity with God, since it is still not an identity with Him. In any event, it is clear that we cannot raise ourselves above the last rung of the ladder where the problem of problems is finally resolved. The gap between the world of values (however subtly the values are perceived) and the stark reality of level VI can be bridged only by way of God's revelation. This gap is the paradox of our continuing struggle for an enlightenment that will teach us that there is nothing to struggle for. It is the secret of the knot of God's phylacteries that Moses saw on Mount Sinai in God's most open revelation to him. Thus, the true nature of the world beyond this final rung - including its conclusion of the problem of problems - is a subject beyond what is already unapproachable.
1.
Two of the many well-know examples of this principle are: Dante's journey to paradise by way of hell; and the hard times that will precede the Messiah. It is particularly interesting to see this principle in Malbim's discussion of the nature of exile. See his Torah Ohr on the section in Numbers dealing with the spies.
2.
For example, the Midrash Raba says on Genesis 49,9 that Judah was compelled by an angel to sleep with his daughter-in-law Tamar. Although this was an apparent sin, because he did not recognize her and thought she was a non-Jew (see the commentary Ohr Hahayim), in fact he was fulfilling the commandment of levirate marriage. From this union will come Kind David and the Messiah.
| Joy of Charity Essays | | ||
| www.joyoflife.org.il |