(In addition to last post, see Pri Eitz Chayim, Sha'ar Hanhagat ha'Limud 4:2 [quoted by Bezalel Naor, A Kabbalist's Diary, pg.233])
What Is Rabbinic Ordination?
8 hours ago
Search This Blog
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Models of Torah - Part VI.5
(In addition to last post, see Pri Eitz Chayim, Sha'ar Hanhagat ha'Limud 4:2 [quoted by Bezalel Naor, A Kabbalist's Diary, pg.233])Saturday, February 6, 2010
Models of Torah - Part VI - Torah as Worlds, Galaxies and Universes
Some of this post is speculative so please feel free to argue or add to it...
As we approach the Messianic era[i] scientists and philosophers not only discuss worlds and galaxies, but universes and dimensions as well. Some hypothesize that our universe[ii] is but one of the infinite yet interconnected universes that make up a multiverse or omniverse; reality consists of higher and lower planes (and branes!) and multiple dimensions.[iii]
Kabbalistic literature, albeit in a different sense, has described four general universes through which the Divine light is filtered.[iv] These are defined as different dimensions of reality with their own unique properties of space, time, and being.[v] Asiah, the Universe of Action, is the universe with which we are immediately familiar physically and spiritually. Yetzira, the Universe of Formation, is the plane of feeling and song - of angels. B'riah, the universe of Creation, is the dimension of thought and mind.[vi] Atzilut, the world of Emanation, is the world of the Divine, without any concealment.[vii]
These four universes correspond to the four levels of the Torah, PaRDeS (p'shat, remez, d'rash, sod).[viii] Each dimension of Torah is its own universe with its own laws:
P'shat corresponds to Asia in that it's method of interpretation must conform to the logical categories of Asia. The logic of Asia dictates that an interpretation of a text is constrained by literary and cultural context, [ix] principles of human psychology and the laws of time and space.[x] This method of interpretation occurs in a Nefesh-state-of consciousness,[xi] and can be compared to a realistic painting.
Remez corresponds to Yetzira, the universe of emotions and song, since Remez views the text as musical notes,[xii] as symbols intuiting something much greater. There is no connection between the symbol and that which it symbolizes.[xiii] This method of interpretation occurs in a Ruach-state-of-consciousness, and can be compared to an Impressionistic painting.
D'rash corresponds to B’riah[xiv] as it is rule-based
interpretation, flowing from the associations of the intellect, but which nevertheless does not conform to the constraints of the linear thinking of P'shat.[xv] Furthermore, it uncovers the “sub-conscious” of the text. This method of interpretation occurs in a Neshama-state-of-consciousness, and can be compared to a Cubist painting.
Sod corresponds to Atzilut as it discusses that universe - interpreting the Torah and the events and laws recorded therein from the perspective of the highest spiritual
reality.[xvi] This method of interpretation occurs in a Chaya-state-of-consciousness, and can be compared to an Abstract painting.
Each of these universes contains mansions, or self-contained worlds and galaxies. The Torah, too, is not only composed of Universes, but it also contains infinite worlds and galaxies within each Universe. As R. Hutner writes[xvii]: “Since Hashem looked into the Torah and created the world, therefore, all the seventy[xviii] ways of understanding the Torah have a corresponding seventy worlds parallel to them. Hence, every understanding of Torah reveals a corresponding world that is attuned to that understanding of Torah. Therefore, what one learns in Torah through p’shat confers a happening of p’shat in the world of p’shat[xix]...this is the foundation regarding all the ways in which Torah is learned."[xx] However, as much a each interpretation is its own world, sometimes interpretations are variations on the same theme and thus form a galaxy, an orbit of worlds around a sun.
Indeed, Reality is a multiverse yet it is a unity. "What is below is above." So too the Torah - each level is a higher abstraction of the previous,[xxi] and each level informs the other.[xxii]
Kabbalistic literature, albeit in a different sense, has described four general universes through which the Divine light is filtered.[iv] These are defined as different dimensions of reality with their own unique properties of space, time, and being.[v] Asiah, the Universe of Action, is the universe with which we are immediately familiar physically and spiritually. Yetzira, the Universe of Formation, is the plane of feeling and song - of angels. B'riah, the universe of Creation, is the dimension of thought and mind.[vi] Atzilut, the world of Emanation, is the world of the Divine, without any concealment.[vii]
These four universes correspond to the four levels of the Torah, PaRDeS (p'shat, remez, d'rash, sod).[viii] Each dimension of Torah is its own universe with its own laws:
P'shat corresponds to Asia in that it's method of interpretation must conform to the logical categories of Asia. The logic of Asia dictates that an interpretation of a text is constrained by literary and cultural context, [ix] principles of human psychology and the laws of time and space.[x] This method of interpretation occurs in a Nefesh-state-of consciousness,[xi] and can be compared to a realistic painting.
Remez corresponds to Yetzira, the universe of emotions and song, since Remez views the text as musical notes,[xii] as symbols intuiting something much greater. There is no connection between the symbol and that which it symbolizes.[xiii] This method of interpretation occurs in a Ruach-state-of-consciousness, and can be compared to an Impressionistic painting.
D'rash corresponds to B’riah[xiv] as it is rule-based
interpretation, flowing from the associations of the intellect, but which nevertheless does not conform to the constraints of the linear thinking of P'shat.[xv] Furthermore, it uncovers the “sub-conscious” of the text. This method of interpretation occurs in a Neshama-state-of-consciousness, and can be compared to a Cubist painting.Sod corresponds to Atzilut as it discusses that universe - interpreting the Torah and the events and laws recorded therein from the perspective of the highest spiritual
reality.[xvi] This method of interpretation occurs in a Chaya-state-of-consciousness, and can be compared to an Abstract painting.Each of these universes contains mansions, or self-contained worlds and galaxies. The Torah, too, is not only composed of Universes, but it also contains infinite worlds and galaxies within each Universe. As R. Hutner writes[xvii]: “Since Hashem looked into the Torah and created the world, therefore, all the seventy[xviii] ways of understanding the Torah have a corresponding seventy worlds parallel to them. Hence, every understanding of Torah reveals a corresponding world that is attuned to that understanding of Torah. Therefore, what one learns in Torah through p’shat confers a happening of p’shat in the world of p’shat[xix]...this is the foundation regarding all the ways in which Torah is learned."[xx] However, as much a each interpretation is its own world, sometimes interpretations are variations on the same theme and thus form a galaxy, an orbit of worlds around a sun.
Indeed, Reality is a multiverse yet it is a unity. "What is below is above." So too the Torah - each level is a higher abstraction of the previous,[xxi] and each level informs the other.[xxii]
[i] See the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Rabbis Yitzchak Ginsburgh, Moshe Shatz, Joel david Bakst, and Herman Branover
[ii] http://www.etymonline.com/
1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole"
[iii] For example, see Clifford Pickover, Michio Kaku, Fred Wolf, Bernard Carr, and Alex Vilinkin
[iv] Nefesh ha’Chaim, 1:12
[v] R. Steinsaltz, A Thirteen Peddled Rose, pg. 3, based on Sefer Yetzira.
[vi] Souls (and Seraphs) are from B’riah
[vii] See Siddur ha’Mekubalim on how the four universes are reflected in the Siddur. In short, Birchot ha’Shachar are in Asiah, Pesukei d’Zimra are in Yetzira, Shema is in B’riah, and Shmoneh Esrei is in Atzilut.
[viii] Ohr Gedaelyahu, Breisheit 5b quoting the Sefas Emes (Thanks to R. Yaakov Shlomo Weinberg for this source). This applies to all works written b’Ruach ha’Kodesh. R. Yaakov Elman (Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, pgs. 242-250) quotes many sources that maintain the view that a work written with Divine inspiration contains multiple levels of meaning (Pardes, Shivim Panim etc.), especially R. Yonasan Eibescheutz (Urim veTumim, kitzur tekafo kohen, nn.123-124), R. Tzadok ha'Kohen (Machesevet Charutz 6a-b), and R Yisrael Dov Ber of Zledniki (Shereit Yisrael 6c).. See Avakesh for a discussion of this.
[ix] One aspect of this is the original intent of the author. Although this is debatable according to Post-Modernists, a) I think it is the common-sense approach, b) interpretations not like the original intent of the text have their place in other methods of interpretation (such as Remez).
[x] However, the events described in the Torah sometimes only occurred in a higher world. R. Dessler (Michtav M'Eliyahu 1: pg 308, based on Maharal, Gevurot Hashem, Second Introduction; see R. Micha Berger here and here) gives examples of miraculous events in the Torah which only occurred in a higher world: a) Yaakov’s “Kefitzat ha’Derech; b) The sun standing still; c) the sea splitting.Also see Ramchal and Leshem on Ma’aseh B’reisheit which is discussed here.
With this said, if one's view of reality is flat then even their p’shat reading of Tanakh will make little or no sense. They will try to force the miraculous into the three dimensions that their senses perceive and bizarre interpretations follow.
[xi] Da’at Hashem, pgs. 349-374 discusses partially that Pardes also corresponds to Naran Ch”y (the five levels of the soul). See Eitz Chayim, Sha’ar Hanhagot ha’Limud, Chapter 1. However, see Sha’ar ha’Gilgulim, Hakdama 18.
[xii] I heard in the name of Shlomo Katz that ReMeZ is ZeMeR backwards. As pointed out above, Pesukei d’Zimra is in Yetzira.
[xiii] R. Hirsch on the beginning of Mishpatim gives the famous analogy of a student’s notes to a lecture regarding d’rash. Also see R. Kook, Kadama l’Eyn Aya for a discussion of Remez.
[xiv] R. Hutner (quoted below) and R. Dessler (Michtav M'Eliyahu 1: pg 308) use this to explain Ta’anit 5b which states “Yaakov did not die” – this is only true in the world of Derash/B’riah.
[xv] Maharal, Be’er ha’Golah, Be’er Shlishi, compares the Torah to a tree. P’shat is the root but d’rash reveals the many-sides of the tree. He relates this to his conception of “Elu v’Elu.” See here and here on Cubism.
[xvi] This level of reality is not written in the Torah except in code. The Maharal, Gevurot Hashem, Chapter 17, explains that this is why the Torah does not explicitly recount how the maidens of Pharoah’s daughter died – they only died a spiritual death. This also explains why olam ha’bah, which occurs in the higher planes, is not mentioned in the Torah explicitly but it is mentioned in Remez, Derash, and Sod.
[xvii] Pachad Yitzchak, Pesach, Ma’amar 52:3. Thanks to R. Yaakov Shlomo Weinberg for the translation.
[xviii] The Vilna Gaon writes that there are forty-nine approaches to the written Torah and seventy approaches to the Oral Torah (Shir haShirim 2:4) and that within the seventy approaches there are six-hundred thousand more approaches (Shir haShirim 5:10).
[xix] R. Hutner calls this world a “world of p’shat” while I’m connecting it to “Asiah.”
[xx] R. Tzadok takes it further - an innovation within one creates an innovation in the other. See the lectures of R. Yaacov Haber for how this played out in Jewish intellectual history. One might wonder if an innovation in Remez only cause an innovation in Yetzira, or does this innovation have a parallel in all of the universes.
[xxi] See Shiurei Da’at, Dor Haflaga for an example of this.
[xxii] Vilna Gaon, Mishlei 5:18, and R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s note on Mishlei 2:9
[ii] http://www.etymonline.com/
1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole"
[iii] For example, see Clifford Pickover, Michio Kaku, Fred Wolf, Bernard Carr, and Alex Vilinkin
[iv] Nefesh ha’Chaim, 1:12
[v] R. Steinsaltz, A Thirteen Peddled Rose, pg. 3, based on Sefer Yetzira.
[vi] Souls (and Seraphs) are from B’riah
[vii] See Siddur ha’Mekubalim on how the four universes are reflected in the Siddur. In short, Birchot ha’Shachar are in Asiah, Pesukei d’Zimra are in Yetzira, Shema is in B’riah, and Shmoneh Esrei is in Atzilut.
[viii] Ohr Gedaelyahu, Breisheit 5b quoting the Sefas Emes (Thanks to R. Yaakov Shlomo Weinberg for this source). This applies to all works written b’Ruach ha’Kodesh. R. Yaakov Elman (Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, pgs. 242-250) quotes many sources that maintain the view that a work written with Divine inspiration contains multiple levels of meaning (Pardes, Shivim Panim etc.), especially R. Yonasan Eibescheutz (Urim veTumim, kitzur tekafo kohen, nn.123-124), R. Tzadok ha'Kohen (Machesevet Charutz 6a-b), and R Yisrael Dov Ber of Zledniki (Shereit Yisrael 6c).. See Avakesh for a discussion of this.
[ix] One aspect of this is the original intent of the author. Although this is debatable according to Post-Modernists, a) I think it is the common-sense approach, b) interpretations not like the original intent of the text have their place in other methods of interpretation (such as Remez).
[x] However, the events described in the Torah sometimes only occurred in a higher world. R. Dessler (Michtav M'Eliyahu 1: pg 308, based on Maharal, Gevurot Hashem, Second Introduction; see R. Micha Berger here and here) gives examples of miraculous events in the Torah which only occurred in a higher world: a) Yaakov’s “Kefitzat ha’Derech; b) The sun standing still; c) the sea splitting.Also see Ramchal and Leshem on Ma’aseh B’reisheit which is discussed here.
With this said, if one's view of reality is flat then even their p’shat reading of Tanakh will make little or no sense. They will try to force the miraculous into the three dimensions that their senses perceive and bizarre interpretations follow.
[xi] Da’at Hashem, pgs. 349-374 discusses partially that Pardes also corresponds to Naran Ch”y (the five levels of the soul). See Eitz Chayim, Sha’ar Hanhagot ha’Limud, Chapter 1. However, see Sha’ar ha’Gilgulim, Hakdama 18.
[xii] I heard in the name of Shlomo Katz that ReMeZ is ZeMeR backwards. As pointed out above, Pesukei d’Zimra is in Yetzira.
[xiii] R. Hirsch on the beginning of Mishpatim gives the famous analogy of a student’s notes to a lecture regarding d’rash. Also see R. Kook, Kadama l’Eyn Aya for a discussion of Remez.
[xiv] R. Hutner (quoted below) and R. Dessler (Michtav M'Eliyahu 1: pg 308) use this to explain Ta’anit 5b which states “Yaakov did not die” – this is only true in the world of Derash/B’riah.
[xv] Maharal, Be’er ha’Golah, Be’er Shlishi, compares the Torah to a tree. P’shat is the root but d’rash reveals the many-sides of the tree. He relates this to his conception of “Elu v’Elu.” See here and here on Cubism.
[xvi] This level of reality is not written in the Torah except in code. The Maharal, Gevurot Hashem, Chapter 17, explains that this is why the Torah does not explicitly recount how the maidens of Pharoah’s daughter died – they only died a spiritual death. This also explains why olam ha’bah, which occurs in the higher planes, is not mentioned in the Torah explicitly but it is mentioned in Remez, Derash, and Sod.
[xvii] Pachad Yitzchak, Pesach, Ma’amar 52:3. Thanks to R. Yaakov Shlomo Weinberg for the translation.
[xviii] The Vilna Gaon writes that there are forty-nine approaches to the written Torah and seventy approaches to the Oral Torah (Shir haShirim 2:4) and that within the seventy approaches there are six-hundred thousand more approaches (Shir haShirim 5:10).
[xix] R. Hutner calls this world a “world of p’shat” while I’m connecting it to “Asiah.”
[xx] R. Tzadok takes it further - an innovation within one creates an innovation in the other. See the lectures of R. Yaacov Haber for how this played out in Jewish intellectual history. One might wonder if an innovation in Remez only cause an innovation in Yetzira, or does this innovation have a parallel in all of the universes.
[xxi] See Shiurei Da’at, Dor Haflaga for an example of this.
[xxii] Vilna Gaon, Mishlei 5:18, and R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s note on Mishlei 2:9
Monday, February 1, 2010
Why Learn Gemara -Part VI: Torah as a Revelation of the Divine Presence
כְּתָב-לְךָ אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה: כִּי עַל-פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, כָּרַתִּי אִתְּךָ בְּרִית--וְאֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל
The spirituality hovering above and buried within the Torah has been called many names: Light,[i] Divine flow,[ii] Transcendence,[iii] or most commonly, the Shechinah (Divine presence).[iv]
The entire Torah is but one Name of Hashem, one manifestation of the Divine.[v] The Holy One has a dwelling place within the infinitude[vi] of the four amot of halaka,[vii] and when one sits and learns the Shechinah is with him,[viii] kissing his words…[ix]
"The study of Torah has a great cathartic impact upon me. It is rooted inthe wondrous experience I always have when I open up a gemara. Somehow,when I open a gemara, either alone or when I am in company, when I teachothers, I have the impression -- don't call it hallucination -- I have theimpression that I hear soft footsteps of somebody, invisible, who comes inand sits down with me, sometimes looking over my shoulder. The idea is not a mystical idea -- the mishna in avos, the gemara in Brachos says yachid sheyoshev v'osek batorah, shechina shruya. We all believe thatthe nosein hatorah, the One who gave us the Torah, has never deserted theTorah. And He simply accompanies the Torah; wherever the Torah has a rendezvous, an appointment, a date with somebody, He is there.
"It is a total, all-encompassing and all-embracing involvement -- mind and heart, will and feeling, the center of the human personality -- emotional man, logical man, volunteristic man -- all of them are involved in the study ofTorah. Talmud torah is basically for me an ecstatic experience, in which one meets G-d. And again I want to say that whatever I told you now is not just mysticism or, due to my mystical inclinations; it isn't so. The gemara says so -- chazal have equated talmud torah with revelation, and the great event, the drama of Jewish [living] is reenacted, and restaged,and relived, every time a Jew opens up a gemara. (Rav Yoseph Ber Soloveitchik; Also see Family Redeemed, Torah and Shechina; See here for an interesting discussion of this passage)
****
In this context the Ran[x] explains the dual purpose of halakha. Indeed one aspect of the halakha, let us call it Mishpat ha’Ivri, is to maintain an organized and well-functioning society. Generally halakha accomplishes this task but there are times when a king or the court itself must override the norm in order to uphold order.[xi] However, the higher-order function of halakha, even the civil laws, is to facilitate the manifestation of the Shefa ha’Eloki, the Shechinah.
This point taken together with another axiom of the halakhic system leads to radical conclusions. The Ran[xii] maintains that we are emphasizes many times that we are obligated to follow the rulings of the Sages even if we think it is wrong and even if it is objectively – from G-d’s perspective – wrong. “” In other words, the Jewish Sages determine how the Shechinah will manifest in this world![xiii]
****
With this principle we can understand a famous statement of the Sages.[xiv] “Why was the Beit ha’Mikdash destroyed? Because they did not say Birkat ha’Torah before learning (B”M 85b).” How are we to understand this enigmatic statement?
The Midrash Rabbah[xv] reveals to us the true purpose of the Beit ha’Mikdash. It gives an analogy of king who gives his daughter away in marriage but finds in difficult to part with her. He tells his son-in-law to build a small room in their home so that he can come and visit. So too Hashem has difficulty in parting with the Torah[xvi] so he gives it to us and tells us to build a small room where he can visit. In other words, the entire purpose of the Beit ha’Mikdash was to provide a dwelling place for the Shechinah so that she may be near those who learn Torah.
The Midrash implies that Hashem gave the Torah to Israel just like a father gives away his daughter; control is relinquished and given to a new entity. Thus, this Midrash hints to the great radical teaching of Judaism – Israel controls how the Divine teaching and presence is manifested in this world. However, since Hashem loves His Torah and wants to be “near” it we are commanded to build a small dwelling place for Him.
Therefore, when we stopped learning, and especially in a way that shows our control over Torah – through innovating new interpretations[xvii] - then there was no reason for the Beit ha’Mikdash to stand (and, as Israel transgressed the three cardinal sins, there were plenty of reasons for it not to stand!).
Now we return to Birkat ha’Torah. The Tz’lach (end of Brachot) writes that Birkat ha’Torah transforms Torat Hashem to Torato (Tehillim 1). In other words, every morning we reassert our great gift and privilege - our control over the Torah. And when we control the Torah Hashem desires to be reconnected with it. “Why was the Beit ha’Mikdash destroyed? Because they did not say Birkat ha’Torah before learning.”
------------------
[i] “The Rabbis said (Chagiga 12a): ‘By the light which G-d created the first day, Man could see from one end of the world to the other.’ Rejoined the Ba’al Shem Tov: ‘And where did He hide that light? In the Torah!” (Zemach Zedeq, quoted in Siddur Maharid, translated by Bezalel Naor in “Lights of Prophecy”)
[ii]Rabbeinu Nissin Gaon, Derashot ha’Ran, Drush #11
[iii] One rendering of the word Kedusha. For sources in Chazal, see Eliyahu Zuta Parsha 10; Mishnat R. Eliezer Parsha 13; Otzar ha’Midrashim, pg. 79.
[iv] Are all of these descriptions of the same thing? Is “light” equivalent to “Shechina”? I would argue that “light” means consciousness. For example, see Zohar 1:30b-21a; Yedid Nefesh 1:2; Maharsha on Chagiga 12a (sources quoted in Sarah Yehudit Shneider, You Are What You Hate, pg. 310).Therefore, every little step towards knowledge is a step towards truth…Hashem Elokeichem Emet.
[v] The obligation to recite Birkat ha’Torah stems from the verse “When I call out in the name of Hashem, they will ascribe greatness to G-d.” R. Yosef Gikatilla in Sha’arei Orah explains that indeed the entire Torah are names of G-d, but they are all united in the root of Shem Hashem. Also see R. Kook, Orot ha’Torah .
[vi] Shiurei Da’at, vol. 1, Darkah shel Torah.
[vii] Brachot 8a
[viii] Avos 3:6;Chelek Gimmel 118a
[ix] Nefesh ha’Chaim, Sha’ar Dalet, Chapter 12 (based on Hakdamat ha’Zohar)
[x] Derashot ha’Ran, Dursh #11. Also see Rambam, Moreh Nevukhim 3:27 and R. Bachya, Hakdama l’Torah. Also see Ramchal, Hakdama l’Messilat Yesharim.
[xi] See Sanhedrin 46a and Yevamot 90b. Aish quotes the Shelah ha’Kadosh (Shnei Luchot HaBrit, Shoftim 101a) “Justice, justice shall you pursue. It says "Justice" twice. The first is directed to the judges who judge in accordance with Torah law. There is a second "justice" for compromise or emergency decrees, which are done occasionally by a prophet or king, in order for the world to exist. Therefore, the verse concludes that you may live, and inherit the land which the Lord your God gives you. As the Sages said "Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave judgments therein in accordance with Biblical law."
[xii] Drush # 3 and 7, based on B”M 59b and 86a
[xiii] The Ran himself may not agree to this formulation since he maintains that even though all opinions were given to Moshe at Sinai there is still an objective “heavenly Shulkhan Arukh.” Therefore he is bothered by the possibility that the Sages sometimes ruled mistakenly and it could be dangerous to one’s spiritual health. In my formulation this wouldn’t be a question – everything that the Sages decided determine what is spiritually healthy. See Sh”ut Chavot Yair.
[xiv] The following is based on R. Asher Weiss, Michat Asher, Hakdama l’Bava Batra.
[xv] Terumah 33:1; Also see Ramban, beginning of Terumah. This gives new meaning to Avos 3:6;Chelek Gimmel 118a
[xvi] This refers to “Torah ha’Keduma” which is found in many statements of the Sages (and later Kabbalists)
[xvii] Zohar, Balak
Monday, January 25, 2010
אורות הנשמה והתורה
ניצוץ נגה
מאיר ועולה
מתפלל לרבונה
-זאת התפילה המתמדת שלה
מאיר ועולה
מתפלל לרבונה
-זאת התפילה המתמדת שלה
תפילת הנשמה
מתפשטת אורה
על פני תבל ומלואה
ומחיה העיף ויגע
-זאת השירה המשכלת שלה
על פני תבל ומלואה
ומחיה העיף ויגע
-זאת השירה המשכלת שלה
שירת התורה
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Models of Torah V - The Torah as Light
Light is not only the source of life and the vehicle for manifesting the physical world, but also is a common metaphor for positive emotion and spirituality. We yearn for enlightenment and wait for the redemptive twilight, shed light upon and illuminate difficulties, delight and brighten up someone's day, shine and beam with radiance, and ignite the spark in someone's heart and soul.
The examples from our own tradition are numerous: Moshe encounters a burning bush and his face shines with light; Sinai is ablaze with lighting and fire, and the Mishkan contains the fire of G-d; David ha'Melech sings "in His light we see light" (Tehillim 36:10) and that "light is sown for the righteous" (97:11); and the prophets await the day when the Israel and the entire world will be inundated with light (Yesheyahu 30:26; Zecharia 14:7.)
Torah too is called light - Ner Mitzvah v'Torah Ohr (Mishlei 6:23; also see Tehillim 119:105) Our Sages understood that just as light refracts into different hues so does the Torah split into seventy different facets (Rashi on Shemot 6:9, based on Yirmeiyahu 23:29). Furthermore, just as a candle does not lose its strength by lighting another candle so too a teacher does not lose his wisdom from teaching a disciple (Netziv, Ha'amek she'elah, based on Devarim 33:2).
But light is not merely a metaphor for spirituality. Mystics and survivors of Near Death Experiences see the light, and healers perceive and work with energy. The Torah, too, is not only compared to light - it is light.
The Ramchal (Derech Eitz Chaim) continually reminds his readers that the Torah is Ohr mamash - real and perceivable light. The light from Hashem Himself (Derech Hashem 4:2:5) Accordingly, the Ramchal (4:2:7) takes on Sukkah 28a literally: Yonasan b Uziel would generate enough energy while learning Torah that if a bird would fly over his head it would be burnt. On a lesser leve, it is said that the doctors of Rabbi Akiva Eiger were flabergasted - how could such an old man have so much energy? The secret is that this hidden light (Tanchuma, Parshat Noah 3) gives life (Tehillim 36:10).* This can be compared, l'havdil, to a Qi gong or Tai Chi master who through certain outer and inner meditative movements can generate powerful energy.** The Jewish version of Tai Chi - our ruchniyot - is Torah u'Mitzvot. And through this light the Torah cleanses the mind, heart (Kiddushin 30b), and body (Eruvin 54) of a person.
*Recently a healer in Jerusalem who I am fortunate to know told me that the light he saw in the Torah scroll gave him renewed pure energy after a particularly dark and difficult patient.
**Attention has particlarly been drawn to the parallels between the placement of Tefillin and Acupuncture points (I once heard that Rebbe Nosson in Likutei Halakhot discusses this). See here and here.
The examples from our own tradition are numerous: Moshe encounters a burning bush and his face shines with light; Sinai is ablaze with lighting and fire, and the Mishkan contains the fire of G-d; David ha'Melech sings "in His light we see light" (Tehillim 36:10) and that "light is sown for the righteous" (97:11); and the prophets await the day when the Israel and the entire world will be inundated with light (Yesheyahu 30:26; Zecharia 14:7.)
Torah too is called light - Ner Mitzvah v'Torah Ohr (Mishlei 6:23; also see Tehillim 119:105) Our Sages understood that just as light refracts into different hues so does the Torah split into seventy different facets (Rashi on Shemot 6:9, based on Yirmeiyahu 23:29). Furthermore, just as a candle does not lose its strength by lighting another candle so too a teacher does not lose his wisdom from teaching a disciple (Netziv, Ha'amek she'elah, based on Devarim 33:2).
But light is not merely a metaphor for spirituality. Mystics and survivors of Near Death Experiences see the light, and healers perceive and work with energy. The Torah, too, is not only compared to light - it is light.
The Ramchal (Derech Eitz Chaim) continually reminds his readers that the Torah is Ohr mamash - real and perceivable light. The light from Hashem Himself (Derech Hashem 4:2:5) Accordingly, the Ramchal (4:2:7) takes on Sukkah 28a literally: Yonasan b Uziel would generate enough energy while learning Torah that if a bird would fly over his head it would be burnt. On a lesser leve, it is said that the doctors of Rabbi Akiva Eiger were flabergasted - how could such an old man have so much energy? The secret is that this hidden light (Tanchuma, Parshat Noah 3) gives life (Tehillim 36:10).* This can be compared, l'havdil, to a Qi gong or Tai Chi master who through certain outer and inner meditative movements can generate powerful energy.** The Jewish version of Tai Chi - our ruchniyot - is Torah u'Mitzvot. And through this light the Torah cleanses the mind, heart (Kiddushin 30b), and body (Eruvin 54) of a person.
*Recently a healer in Jerusalem who I am fortunate to know told me that the light he saw in the Torah scroll gave him renewed pure energy after a particularly dark and difficult patient.
**Attention has particlarly been drawn to the parallels between the placement of Tefillin and Acupuncture points (I once heard that Rebbe Nosson in Likutei Halakhot discusses this). See here and here.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Deeper is Higher - Part V.5
In the previous post in the series Deeper is Higher, I briefly summarized the voluminous research of Ian Stevenson. While Stevenson certainly got the attention of the scientific mainstream, one obituary concludes that “His greatest frustration, he maintained, was not that people dismissed his theories, but that so few bothered even to read the evidence he had so painstakingly assembled.”
However, for those who are intellectually honest, including many skeptics, there is no denying the fact that the phenomenon of "Children who remember previous lives" does occur. The only question is how to explain this phenomenon.
We will test each explanation on one case provided by Stevenson’s colleagues, Jim Tucker and Jurgen Keil (Life Before Life, pgs. xi-xiv; the original journal article is available here):
“Dr. Jurgen Keil, a psychologist from Australia, listened as Kemal Atasoy, a six-year-old boy in Turkey, confidently recounted details of a previous life. They were meeting in the boy's home, a comfortable house in an upper middle class neighborhood, and with them were Dr. Keil's interpreter and Kemal's parents, a well-educated couple who seemed amused at times by the enthusiasm that the little boy showed in describing his experiences. He said that he had lived in Istanbul, 500 miles away. He stated that his family's name had been Karakas and that he had been a rich Armenian Christian who lived in a large three-story house. The house, he said, was next to the house of a woman named Aysegul, a well-known personality in Turkey, who had left the country because of legal problems. Kemal said that his house had been on the water, where boats were tied up, and that a church was behind it. He said that his wife and children had Greek first names. He also said that he often carried a large leather bad and that he only lived in the house for part of the year.
"No one knew if Kemal's story was true when he met Dr. Keil in 1997. His parents did not know anyone in Istanbul. In fact, Kemal and his mother had never been there, and his father had only visited the city twice on business. In addition, the family knew no Armenians. His parents were Alevi Muslims, a group with a belief in reincarnation, but they did not seem to think that Kemal's statements, which he had been making from the time he was just a toddle of two year of age, were particularly important.
"Dr. Keil set out to determine if the statements that Kemal had given fit with someone who had actually lived. The work that Dr. Keil had to perform to find out if such a person even existed demonstrates that Kemal could not have come across the details of the man's life by accident.
"When Dr. Keil and his interpreter went to Istanbul, they found the house of Aysegul, the woman who Kemal had named. Next to the house was an empty three-story residence that precisely matched Kemal's description - it was at the edge of a the water, where boats were tied up, with a church behind it. Dr. Keil then had trouble finding any evidence that a person like the one Kemal described had ever lived there. No Armenians were living in that part of Istanbul at the time, and Dr. Keil could not find anyone who remembered any Armenians ever having lived there. When he returned to Istanbul later that year, he talked with Armenian church officials, who told him that they were not aware that an Armenian had ever lived in the house. No church records indicated one had, but a fire had destroyed many of the records. Dr. Keil talked with an elderly man in the neighborhood who said that an Armenian definitely lived there many years before that the church officials were simply too young to remember that long ago.
"Armed with that report, Dr. Keil decided to continue his search for information. The next year, he made a third trip to the area and interviewed a well-respected local historian. During the interview, Dr. Keil made sure he did not prompt any answers or make any suggestions. The historian told a story strikingly similar to the one Kemal had told. The historian said that a rich Armenian Christian had, in fact, lived in that house. He had been the only Armenian in that area, and his family's name was Karakas. His wife was Greek Orthodox, and her family did not approve of the marriage. The couple had three children, but the historian did not know their names. He said that the Karakas clan lived in another part of Istanbul, that they deal in leather goods, and that the deceased man in question often carried a large leather bad. He also said that the deceased man lived in the house only during the summer months of the year. He had died in 1940 or 1941.
"Though Dr. Keil ws not able to verify Kemal's statement that the wife and children had Greek first names, the wife came from a Greek family. The first name that Kemal had given for the man turned out to be an Armenian term [Fistik] meaning "nice man." Dr. Keil could not confirm that people actually called Mr. Karakas that, but he was struck by the fact that, even though no one around him knew the expression, Kemal had given a name that could easily have been used to describe Mr. Karakas.
"How did this little boy, living in town 500 miles away, know so many things about a man who had died in Istanbul fifty years before he was born? He could not have heard about the man Dr. Keil had to work so hard to learn anything about. What possible explanation could there be? Kemal had a very simple answer: he said that he had been the man in a previous life."
Normal Explanations ( from weakest to strongest):
The difficultly with this is that the most of the time the families have no interest in concocting such a story, and sometimes it is counterproductive for their social-standing or family life. Critics counter that in some cases children may create a story for social benefits (for example, in the Indian caste system or in our case the lived next to a well-known personality). In response, a) these cases are rare and most children and families receive no benefit and have no desire or time to create a hoax, b) there are cases where the child remembers being in a lower caste or having difficult living conditions.
Furthermore, in many cases there are multiple witnesses to the child's claim, and therefore it is unlikely that there is a conspiracy. Thus Stevenson is confident that “Perhaps I have been hoaxed in some cases without knowing this. I cannot deny that this may have happened, but I think it can only have happened rarely, if ever (Children, 147)”
Another suggestion is that the investigators are guilty of fraud. This would mean that at least six primary investigators and countless assistants would be conspiring, an extremely unlikely phenomenon. However, skeptics draw attention to a case where Stevenson's translator was accused of dishonesty:
"The data collected on this trip became the basis for Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, whose publication was delayed because his publisher backed out of the project when it was discovered that Stevenson's interpreter was accused of dishonesty. Stevenson admits the man was dishonest in some matters, but he did not think the man had deceived him. So, Stevenson did not reject the data collected with this interpreter's help."
Stevenson addresses this issue in Children Who Remember Previous Live: “Probably some errors in translation have occurred from time to time, as I have noted (when I have detected them) in my detailed case reports. However, I do not think that these have been numerous or damaging…” (pg. 132)
Thus, even our good friend, Sam Harris, agrees that fraud is unlikely: "Either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on."
III. Another argument is that children have wonderful imaginations and this is the cause of their "memories." Attention is drawn to cryptomnesia, the phenomenon in which a person obtains information normally and then forgets its source. This explanation is only possible in the cases where the child's statements aren't verified or when there was no external confirmation (unlike the case of Kemal Atasoy). This then is a reasonable explanation for a minority of the cases, and Stevenson carefully considered this possibility in almost all of the cases he studied (Children, 149), but even these cases I wouldn't call "worthless" since there are other aspects of evidence besides "memories."
IV. The most serious argument against Stevenson and Co. is that their methodology was sloppy. Generally critics do not maintain that Stevenson was purposely sloppy or, for the most part, that they could have done a better job. Anyone who reads Old Souls will see a first-hand account of how methodical Stevenson was in his investigations. They do claim, however, that a) Stevenson often arrived at the scene after the child forgot the alleged memories of the Previous Personality, and he thus relied on the testimony of the family, or he arrived after the two families had already met (the case was “solved”), b) he was involved in a tricky business by questioning children (and with a translator at that), and c) and analysis of the data is not so clear-cut.
a) The argument is that these cases almost always developed in an uncontrolled setting. This would allow for faulty memory or for a socio-psychological explanation of the cases. Brody developed such a hypothesis (summarized by Stevenson, quoted by Keil: “In a culture having a belief in reincarnation a child who seems to speak about a previous life will be encouraged to say more. What he says then leads his parents somehow to find another family whose members come to believe that the child has been speaking about a deceased member of their family. The two families exchange information about details, and they end by crediting the subject with having had much more knowledge about the identified deceased person than he really had had.” The uncontrolled nature of the cases create “paramnesia” (the delusional belief that two events, or in this case, people, are connected).
This can be countered in numerous ways. First, some cases are more controlled than others, such as when Stevenson arrived while the child was still making statements or displaying behavior etc. or when there were written records of the child’s statements before he met the Previous Personality’s family, or where there was no known surviving family (as in the case of Kemal Atasoy) . Second, this explanation would only explain cases where the culture encourages such beliefs or the parents have some benefit from unintentionally creating such a story. This is not true for all cases. Third, Stevenson tried not to rely on independent witnesses in his investigations. Fourth, Stevenson did not generally give much weight to cases in which the families had already met or even had some past-ties.
b) Interviewing indeed is tricky, and Stevenson had his hand at it for half-a-century. With regard to translators Stevenson addresses this issue as well: “In several different countries, I have been fortunate in having the same interpreters work with me for a decade or longer. They have become used to my methods, and together we have identified some of the words and phrases in the languages used that are particularly liable to faulty translation. Moreover, by recording the questions asked as well as the answers given, I can observe whether the interpreter is asking my questions or pursuing his own line of inquiry. The more experienced interpreters often think of better ways of phrasing a question that I have, and they may also suggest further questions to pursue a point that seems to them important. They have thus become collaborators more than assistants in the interviews (Children Who Remember Past Lives (132).”
c) Leonard Angel, in 1994, critically reviewed one case in Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (Stevenson’s first book, published in 1966) and finds his method wanting in six ways. In short, Imad Elawar was reported to have made 61 statements that matched his Previous Personality. But upon closer examination there were discrepancies between the statements of Elewar and the Previous Personality that Stevenson nevertheless counted as a "match." Stevenson, therefore, may have fallen prey to "subjective validation," or the process of validating words, initials, statements, or signs as accurate because one is able to find them personally meaningful and significant. Also see here.
Thus, Angel was quoted as saying: "'I think he was trying to figure things out, but he just didn't follow elementary proper standards,'' said Leonard Angel, a philosopher of religion at Douglas College in New Westminster, British Columbia, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. ''but you do have to look carefully to see it; that's why he's been very persuasive to many people.''
Stevenson himself and others have argued against Angel's criticisms. For those interested in the give-and-take see here.
V. Another suggestion is that of genetic memory. Most scientists do not believe in such a mechanism, even though epigenetics is somewhat similar to this idea, but, even so, this does not explain cases (such as Kemal Atasoy) in which there is no genetic relationship between the Previous Personality and Current Subject.
VI. Lastly, I quote from The Spiritual Anatomy of Emotion (which, in my opinion, is not so spiritual): "Reincarnation is a tricky concept because it implies that an entire personality - encompassing everything about the deceased - has somehow been incorportated into a new body. Furthermore, it implies that the current person is an outgrowth, a follow-on, a natural extensions of the previous personality (or chain of personalities). The mechanism I am hinting at is much different. It is an embellishment of the known, bodily processes of stress, immobility, and dissociation. It encompasses the physical and feeling knowledge that is stored unconsciously when schocking, painful, or otherwise overwhelming experiences become traumatic and the course of the emotional stream is diverted or dammed up. The latent energy conveyed will relate to the experience itself and the parts of the body most directly invovled, comprising a virtual snapshot of what was being perceived at the time of the threat. I won't posit that the entire personalioty is reborn in a new body - only that the emotional energy that went unreleased in its time obeys the first law of thermodynamics and, through unkown means, is effectibvely transfered to a new residence. In this conceptipn, what survives is the impulse to express intense feelings that have been frozen, held in, or repressed (pg. 352)."
This explanation, while very valuable, does not have full explanatory value (such as, trvial memories and behaviors).
Paranormal Explanations (from weakest to strongest)
I. Perhaps the children are experiencing a form of telepathy (see my post here) combined with subconscious impersonation. Almeder quotes C.T.K. Chari (pg. 43): "[W]e cannot rule out some combination of the counterhypotheses of hidden and disguised memories acquired in a normal fashion, extrasensorially selective tapping of memories of others, and a psychometric or psychoscopic ESP achieving a strong empathic identification with deceased persons..."
Almeder, quoting N. Hintze and J.G. Pratt and Stevenson himself, argues that a) these children do not otherwise display ESP, and b) this phenomenon is well-beyond typical psychic powers.
Another suggestion, though, is that after hearing the claims of the child, the investigator, while attempting to validate the child's statements, psychically influenced the interviewees. In the case of Kemal Atasoy Keil interviewed the historian with the child's claims in mind. Perhaps he psychically influenced the memory of the historian. Perhaps.
II. Another suggestion is that these cases are instances of possession. Almeder (pg. 53) argues that those claiming possession state that "I am X" while those claiming a past-life usually state "I was X." In other words, there isn't a major personality change in past-life memory cases (Tucker, Life Before Life, pg. 46). Also, possession would not explain the existence of birthmarks (pg. 45).
II. Finally, we arrive at reincarnation. Besides the fact that this is what the children are claiming, it also has a high explanatory value ( announcing dreams,confirmed statements, strange behaviors, birthmarks). There are four main problems with this hypothesis:
a) Paul Edwards writes: "An acceptance of the collateral assumptions [involved in the belief in reincarnation] would amount, to borrow a phrase from Kierkegard, to the 'crucifixion' of understanding" (quoted in Alemder, pg. 34). In other words, Edwards a priori finds reincarnation impossible (for example, because there is no explanation as to how the memories enter into a new body). There is not much to argue against such a position.
b) Skeptics are bothered by the population explosion. Apparently, there would not be enough souls/minds to reincarnate into all of the bodies in existence. Since when are skeptics experts on spiritual mechanics...?
c) Different cultures present different type of cases thus suggesting that the memories are cultural-influenced. For example, cultures that do not believe that one can change sex-type in reincarnation do not report cases where a child remembers being a different sex-type. In response, there are cases where no family member believed in reincarnation. Furthermore, when we get to our discussion of Hashgacha/Divine providence we will discuss the subjective nature of Hashgacha/Divine providence. Lastly, there could be a cultural component to the phenomenon but that does not discredit the entire phenomenon ("throw the baby out with the bath water").
d) Critics argue that this hypothesis is unfalsifiable because any "un-solved" case does not count against it. There is a confirmation bias. I'm not sure how to respond to this objection because I am not an expert in the philosophy of science and the need for "falsifiability." All I do know is that Kemal Atasoy had otherwise unexplainable memories. It only takes a few very good cases to make a strong argument that reincarnation occurs, at least, sometimes.
In conclusion, there is a difference between science and common-sense. It is true that Stevenson did not prove with a 95 % confidence interval that the cases he researched for over forty years were indeed cases of reincarnation. However, it seems to me, that anyone who has read a large amount of the cases, does not feel that their assent to belief must be fully scientific, and who has not been blinded by scientism, will find the evidence for reincarnation extremely convincing.
However, for those who are intellectually honest, including many skeptics, there is no denying the fact that the phenomenon of "Children who remember previous lives" does occur. The only question is how to explain this phenomenon.
We will test each explanation on one case provided by Stevenson’s colleagues, Jim Tucker and Jurgen Keil (Life Before Life, pgs. xi-xiv; the original journal article is available here):
“Dr. Jurgen Keil, a psychologist from Australia, listened as Kemal Atasoy, a six-year-old boy in Turkey, confidently recounted details of a previous life. They were meeting in the boy's home, a comfortable house in an upper middle class neighborhood, and with them were Dr. Keil's interpreter and Kemal's parents, a well-educated couple who seemed amused at times by the enthusiasm that the little boy showed in describing his experiences. He said that he had lived in Istanbul, 500 miles away. He stated that his family's name had been Karakas and that he had been a rich Armenian Christian who lived in a large three-story house. The house, he said, was next to the house of a woman named Aysegul, a well-known personality in Turkey, who had left the country because of legal problems. Kemal said that his house had been on the water, where boats were tied up, and that a church was behind it. He said that his wife and children had Greek first names. He also said that he often carried a large leather bad and that he only lived in the house for part of the year.
"No one knew if Kemal's story was true when he met Dr. Keil in 1997. His parents did not know anyone in Istanbul. In fact, Kemal and his mother had never been there, and his father had only visited the city twice on business. In addition, the family knew no Armenians. His parents were Alevi Muslims, a group with a belief in reincarnation, but they did not seem to think that Kemal's statements, which he had been making from the time he was just a toddle of two year of age, were particularly important.
"Dr. Keil set out to determine if the statements that Kemal had given fit with someone who had actually lived. The work that Dr. Keil had to perform to find out if such a person even existed demonstrates that Kemal could not have come across the details of the man's life by accident.
"When Dr. Keil and his interpreter went to Istanbul, they found the house of Aysegul, the woman who Kemal had named. Next to the house was an empty three-story residence that precisely matched Kemal's description - it was at the edge of a the water, where boats were tied up, with a church behind it. Dr. Keil then had trouble finding any evidence that a person like the one Kemal described had ever lived there. No Armenians were living in that part of Istanbul at the time, and Dr. Keil could not find anyone who remembered any Armenians ever having lived there. When he returned to Istanbul later that year, he talked with Armenian church officials, who told him that they were not aware that an Armenian had ever lived in the house. No church records indicated one had, but a fire had destroyed many of the records. Dr. Keil talked with an elderly man in the neighborhood who said that an Armenian definitely lived there many years before that the church officials were simply too young to remember that long ago.
"Armed with that report, Dr. Keil decided to continue his search for information. The next year, he made a third trip to the area and interviewed a well-respected local historian. During the interview, Dr. Keil made sure he did not prompt any answers or make any suggestions. The historian told a story strikingly similar to the one Kemal had told. The historian said that a rich Armenian Christian had, in fact, lived in that house. He had been the only Armenian in that area, and his family's name was Karakas. His wife was Greek Orthodox, and her family did not approve of the marriage. The couple had three children, but the historian did not know their names. He said that the Karakas clan lived in another part of Istanbul, that they deal in leather goods, and that the deceased man in question often carried a large leather bad. He also said that the deceased man lived in the house only during the summer months of the year. He had died in 1940 or 1941.
"Though Dr. Keil ws not able to verify Kemal's statement that the wife and children had Greek first names, the wife came from a Greek family. The first name that Kemal had given for the man turned out to be an Armenian term [Fistik] meaning "nice man." Dr. Keil could not confirm that people actually called Mr. Karakas that, but he was struck by the fact that, even though no one around him knew the expression, Kemal had given a name that could easily have been used to describe Mr. Karakas.
"How did this little boy, living in town 500 miles away, know so many things about a man who had died in Istanbul fifty years before he was born? He could not have heard about the man Dr. Keil had to work so hard to learn anything about. What possible explanation could there be? Kemal had a very simple answer: he said that he had been the man in a previous life."
Normal Explanations ( from weakest to strongest):
I. One explanation suggests that the matches between the Previous Personality and the Current Subject are a coincidence, a fluke. When I first saw this explanation I laughed out loud in an otherwise quiet library. You could maybe suggest such an explanation for one or two cases or for a few "matches" in each case, but "strength is in the numbers." Kemal Atasoy, for example, made fifteen fully confirmed statements concerning his Previous Personality, three partially confirmed, and four unconfirmed statements. It is preposterous to claim that "coincidence" has much explanatory value.
II. Perhaps the researcher was deceived by the child or the family in some critical way. In the case of Kemal Atasoy that would mean that his parents had coached him or perhaps he had read about Aysegul's neighbor somewhere and intentionally claimed that he was the reincarnate of that man. In other cases, by the time the investigator arrives on the scene, the child does not remember the past-life and the testimony of the parents must be relied upon. It is conceivable that the parents, in at least some of the cases, are lying.The difficultly with this is that the most of the time the families have no interest in concocting such a story, and sometimes it is counterproductive for their social-standing or family life. Critics counter that in some cases children may create a story for social benefits (for example, in the Indian caste system or in our case the lived next to a well-known personality). In response, a) these cases are rare and most children and families receive no benefit and have no desire or time to create a hoax, b) there are cases where the child remembers being in a lower caste or having difficult living conditions.
Furthermore, in many cases there are multiple witnesses to the child's claim, and therefore it is unlikely that there is a conspiracy. Thus Stevenson is confident that “Perhaps I have been hoaxed in some cases without knowing this. I cannot deny that this may have happened, but I think it can only have happened rarely, if ever (Children, 147)”
Another suggestion is that the investigators are guilty of fraud. This would mean that at least six primary investigators and countless assistants would be conspiring, an extremely unlikely phenomenon. However, skeptics draw attention to a case where Stevenson's translator was accused of dishonesty:
"The data collected on this trip became the basis for Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, whose publication was delayed because his publisher backed out of the project when it was discovered that Stevenson's interpreter was accused of dishonesty. Stevenson admits the man was dishonest in some matters, but he did not think the man had deceived him. So, Stevenson did not reject the data collected with this interpreter's help."
Stevenson addresses this issue in Children Who Remember Previous Live: “Probably some errors in translation have occurred from time to time, as I have noted (when I have detected them) in my detailed case reports. However, I do not think that these have been numerous or damaging…” (pg. 132)
Thus, even our good friend, Sam Harris, agrees that fraud is unlikely: "Either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on."
III. Another argument is that children have wonderful imaginations and this is the cause of their "memories." Attention is drawn to cryptomnesia, the phenomenon in which a person obtains information normally and then forgets its source. This explanation is only possible in the cases where the child's statements aren't verified or when there was no external confirmation (unlike the case of Kemal Atasoy). This then is a reasonable explanation for a minority of the cases, and Stevenson carefully considered this possibility in almost all of the cases he studied (Children, 149), but even these cases I wouldn't call "worthless" since there are other aspects of evidence besides "memories."
IV. The most serious argument against Stevenson and Co. is that their methodology was sloppy. Generally critics do not maintain that Stevenson was purposely sloppy or, for the most part, that they could have done a better job. Anyone who reads Old Souls will see a first-hand account of how methodical Stevenson was in his investigations. They do claim, however, that a) Stevenson often arrived at the scene after the child forgot the alleged memories of the Previous Personality, and he thus relied on the testimony of the family, or he arrived after the two families had already met (the case was “solved”), b) he was involved in a tricky business by questioning children (and with a translator at that), and c) and analysis of the data is not so clear-cut.
a) The argument is that these cases almost always developed in an uncontrolled setting. This would allow for faulty memory or for a socio-psychological explanation of the cases. Brody developed such a hypothesis (summarized by Stevenson, quoted by Keil: “In a culture having a belief in reincarnation a child who seems to speak about a previous life will be encouraged to say more. What he says then leads his parents somehow to find another family whose members come to believe that the child has been speaking about a deceased member of their family. The two families exchange information about details, and they end by crediting the subject with having had much more knowledge about the identified deceased person than he really had had.” The uncontrolled nature of the cases create “paramnesia” (the delusional belief that two events, or in this case, people, are connected).
This can be countered in numerous ways. First, some cases are more controlled than others, such as when Stevenson arrived while the child was still making statements or displaying behavior etc. or when there were written records of the child’s statements before he met the Previous Personality’s family, or where there was no known surviving family (as in the case of Kemal Atasoy) . Second, this explanation would only explain cases where the culture encourages such beliefs or the parents have some benefit from unintentionally creating such a story. This is not true for all cases. Third, Stevenson tried not to rely on independent witnesses in his investigations. Fourth, Stevenson did not generally give much weight to cases in which the families had already met or even had some past-ties.
b) Interviewing indeed is tricky, and Stevenson had his hand at it for half-a-century. With regard to translators Stevenson addresses this issue as well: “In several different countries, I have been fortunate in having the same interpreters work with me for a decade or longer. They have become used to my methods, and together we have identified some of the words and phrases in the languages used that are particularly liable to faulty translation. Moreover, by recording the questions asked as well as the answers given, I can observe whether the interpreter is asking my questions or pursuing his own line of inquiry. The more experienced interpreters often think of better ways of phrasing a question that I have, and they may also suggest further questions to pursue a point that seems to them important. They have thus become collaborators more than assistants in the interviews (Children Who Remember Past Lives (132).”
c) Leonard Angel, in 1994, critically reviewed one case in Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (Stevenson’s first book, published in 1966) and finds his method wanting in six ways. In short, Imad Elawar was reported to have made 61 statements that matched his Previous Personality. But upon closer examination there were discrepancies between the statements of Elewar and the Previous Personality that Stevenson nevertheless counted as a "match." Stevenson, therefore, may have fallen prey to "subjective validation," or the process of validating words, initials, statements, or signs as accurate because one is able to find them personally meaningful and significant. Also see here.
Thus, Angel was quoted as saying: "'I think he was trying to figure things out, but he just didn't follow elementary proper standards,'' said Leonard Angel, a philosopher of religion at Douglas College in New Westminster, British Columbia, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. ''but you do have to look carefully to see it; that's why he's been very persuasive to many people.''
Stevenson himself and others have argued against Angel's criticisms. For those interested in the give-and-take see here.
V. Another suggestion is that of genetic memory. Most scientists do not believe in such a mechanism, even though epigenetics is somewhat similar to this idea, but, even so, this does not explain cases (such as Kemal Atasoy) in which there is no genetic relationship between the Previous Personality and Current Subject.
VI. Lastly, I quote from The Spiritual Anatomy of Emotion (which, in my opinion, is not so spiritual): "Reincarnation is a tricky concept because it implies that an entire personality - encompassing everything about the deceased - has somehow been incorportated into a new body. Furthermore, it implies that the current person is an outgrowth, a follow-on, a natural extensions of the previous personality (or chain of personalities). The mechanism I am hinting at is much different. It is an embellishment of the known, bodily processes of stress, immobility, and dissociation. It encompasses the physical and feeling knowledge that is stored unconsciously when schocking, painful, or otherwise overwhelming experiences become traumatic and the course of the emotional stream is diverted or dammed up. The latent energy conveyed will relate to the experience itself and the parts of the body most directly invovled, comprising a virtual snapshot of what was being perceived at the time of the threat. I won't posit that the entire personalioty is reborn in a new body - only that the emotional energy that went unreleased in its time obeys the first law of thermodynamics and, through unkown means, is effectibvely transfered to a new residence. In this conceptipn, what survives is the impulse to express intense feelings that have been frozen, held in, or repressed (pg. 352)."
This explanation, while very valuable, does not have full explanatory value (such as, trvial memories and behaviors).
Paranormal Explanations (from weakest to strongest)
I. Perhaps the children are experiencing a form of telepathy (see my post here) combined with subconscious impersonation. Almeder quotes C.T.K. Chari (pg. 43): "[W]e cannot rule out some combination of the counterhypotheses of hidden and disguised memories acquired in a normal fashion, extrasensorially selective tapping of memories of others, and a psychometric or psychoscopic ESP achieving a strong empathic identification with deceased persons..."
Almeder, quoting N. Hintze and J.G. Pratt and Stevenson himself, argues that a) these children do not otherwise display ESP, and b) this phenomenon is well-beyond typical psychic powers.
Another suggestion, though, is that after hearing the claims of the child, the investigator, while attempting to validate the child's statements, psychically influenced the interviewees. In the case of Kemal Atasoy Keil interviewed the historian with the child's claims in mind. Perhaps he psychically influenced the memory of the historian. Perhaps.
II. Another suggestion is that these cases are instances of possession. Almeder (pg. 53) argues that those claiming possession state that "I am X" while those claiming a past-life usually state "I was X." In other words, there isn't a major personality change in past-life memory cases (Tucker, Life Before Life, pg. 46). Also, possession would not explain the existence of birthmarks (pg. 45).
II. Finally, we arrive at reincarnation. Besides the fact that this is what the children are claiming, it also has a high explanatory value ( announcing dreams,confirmed statements, strange behaviors, birthmarks). There are four main problems with this hypothesis:
a) Paul Edwards writes: "An acceptance of the collateral assumptions [involved in the belief in reincarnation] would amount, to borrow a phrase from Kierkegard, to the 'crucifixion' of understanding" (quoted in Alemder, pg. 34). In other words, Edwards a priori finds reincarnation impossible (for example, because there is no explanation as to how the memories enter into a new body). There is not much to argue against such a position.
b) Skeptics are bothered by the population explosion. Apparently, there would not be enough souls/minds to reincarnate into all of the bodies in existence. Since when are skeptics experts on spiritual mechanics...?
c) Different cultures present different type of cases thus suggesting that the memories are cultural-influenced. For example, cultures that do not believe that one can change sex-type in reincarnation do not report cases where a child remembers being a different sex-type. In response, there are cases where no family member believed in reincarnation. Furthermore, when we get to our discussion of Hashgacha/Divine providence we will discuss the subjective nature of Hashgacha/Divine providence. Lastly, there could be a cultural component to the phenomenon but that does not discredit the entire phenomenon ("throw the baby out with the bath water").
d) Critics argue that this hypothesis is unfalsifiable because any "un-solved" case does not count against it. There is a confirmation bias. I'm not sure how to respond to this objection because I am not an expert in the philosophy of science and the need for "falsifiability." All I do know is that Kemal Atasoy had otherwise unexplainable memories. It only takes a few very good cases to make a strong argument that reincarnation occurs, at least, sometimes.
In conclusion, there is a difference between science and common-sense. It is true that Stevenson did not prove with a 95 % confidence interval that the cases he researched for over forty years were indeed cases of reincarnation. However, it seems to me, that anyone who has read a large amount of the cases, does not feel that their assent to belief must be fully scientific, and who has not been blinded by scientism, will find the evidence for reincarnation extremely convincing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
