ONTOLOGY OF LIGHT AND MYSTICAL VISION

(pp. 270-276)

ַַַַַַַAny discussion on the nature of mystical vision must begin with an analysis of the phenomenon of light and light symbolism as it is operative in the given religious tradition of the particular mystic. The frequency with which the religious experience is associated with the phenomenon of light is a well-attested fact in the history of religions. Moreover, the symbolism of light is repeatedly associated with mystical experience. Indeed, the ontology of light gives shape to and generates the mystic experience, which is essentially a state or process of illumination.

One of the dominant features {of the description of this state or process of illumination} is the use of light symbolism to depict the nature of the divine.

For the kabbalist the primary function of the light symbolism is to describe the divine reality; only in a secondary sense does this symbolism function to describe the phenomenological pole. In other terms, the light imagery depicts an exterior light in the divine realm that has an ontologically independent status, whereas the interior light of the mystical experience is a derivative phenomenon. Mystical illumination, therefore, would be a consequence of the luminous nature of the divine. Yet it is the case, as will be shown in more detail in this chapter and the next, that the ontological and phenomenological poles are inseparably interwoven. What is conceived of metaphysically as the ultimate nature of being, that is, light, coincides with what is experienced in the mystical experience of illumination.

While many relevant texts could be cited to support my contention that the convergence of the ontological and phenomenological poles characterizes the theosophy of the kabbalists, I would like in this context to cite two passages in particular, ome that describes the potencies of the divine chariot as luminous names and another that deals more directly with the sefirotic hypostases. The first is taken from an extensive commentary on Ezekiel’s chariot, composed in the second half of the thirteenth century by the Castilian kabbalist Jacob ben Jacob ha-Kohen:

The names above are the true essence, and they are divine powers hewn from the quarry of the intelligible light and from the pure, holy wondrous light. They are appointed to do everything, and every action is realized through them. They are interpreted truthfully by the holy prophets, the great sages, and the select few who make use of them in all good things before the Holy One, blessed be He, and not for another matter that is not the will of God. . . . All this comes to teach you that the names above with the true essence are hewn from the quarry of the light of life, for the intelligible grades are called kings and their glorious names are called princes. He who knows and comprehends the essence of the names, and knows how to mention them properly and correctly, as they are mentioned by the angels, his prayer is immediately received and approved. The enlightened will comprehend this secret that I have revealed concerning the matter of the name.^[1]

The mystical secret connected to the name that this kabbalist has revealed, as we learn from Jacob’s exegesis of Exod. 3:13—15, involves both the visual manifestation of the letters of the name in fiery forms, related to the motif expressed in older esoteric literature concerning the ascension of the letters to the throne of glory, and the proper recitation of the names. In this case the mystical illumination that ensues from knowledge of the names, which constitute the divine essence above in the realm of the chariot, is virtually identical to the magical use of the names. ^[2]

The second textual example is taken from the fourteenth-century kabbalist Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi, who commented thus on the words of Sefer Yesirah 1:8, “Ten ineffable sefirot, their appearance is like lightning”: “There are those who explain [the words] ‘their appearance is like lightning’ [in the following way]: when a prophet or a mystic^[3] comes to gaze upon these holy lights [i.e., the sefirot ] he knows that at times they shine in relation to him and they appear as if they were lightning, and then they immediately are hidden, and they shine again and are hidden.”^[4] The luminous nature of the divine emanations is experienced only in the context of the phenomenological relationship, yet the latter is made possible by the fact that the emanations are constituted by light. This circle is a central to the kabbalistic worldview: one is illuminated by visually contemplating the illuminations above, but the illuminations above are available only to one who is so illuminated.

Before proceeding with a discussion of light and mystical vision, it would be in order to turn our attention briefly to the question of “origins” of kabbalistic speculation understood in a historical vein.^[5] To borrow standard terms from structuralist theory, derived ultimately from the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. a history of ideas must be charted diachronically and synchronically, and what is necessary to account for both axes is a methodology recently termed by Ioan Couliano “morphodynamics,” that is, a description that considers both the morphology of ideal objects, or systems of ideas, and their complex patterns of interaction in time as they cross the surface of history in an apparently unpredictable way.^[6]

One must at the outset recognize the fundamentally syncretistic character of kabbalistic writing and therefore set out to discern multiple tracks, at times intersecting and at other times running parallel. Reflecting on the issue of the ultimate origins of ancient Gnosticism, Robert McL. Wilson observed that it is necessary to recognize several spheres of influence without claiming that any one of them is dominant.^[7] Is it not plausible to adopt just such an approach when discussing the problem of the origins of kabbalah? Would it not be more appropriate to view kabbalah as a religious orientation that expresses itself in various historical manifestations, rather than a historical phenomenon that embraces elements of a religious nature? In the effort to chart the development of kabbalah, we would do better to isolate currents or streams that run through the ever-changing landscape of the relevant texts.

One can distinguish at least four main streams: images and motifs culled from the aggadic-midrashic literature, Merkavah mysticism, theosophic-mythic speculation preserved in texts like Sefer ha-Bahir, and Neo-platonism. The fusion of these different conceptual schemata in the complex symbolism of kabbalah was made possible by the shared acceptance of an ontology of light to characterize both the divine nature and the quintessential human experience of that nature. This is epitomized in one of the more popular etymologies of the key term used to name the divine emanations, the word sefirot, said to derive from sappir, which means sapphire, conveying the notion of luminosity or “sapphirine reflections.”^[8] It is this onto-theological presumption that provides the phenomenological datum of the mystical experience: to know God as light is to be mystically illuminated. The point is well captured in this characterization of the divine emanations:

“And there in a cloud appeared the Presence of the Lord” (Exod. 16:10), “He made darkness His screen” (Ps. 18:12), “a cloud and thick darkness are around Him” (Ps. 97:2), that is, surrounding the Holy One, blessed be He, there is a cloud and thick darkness. The inner glory that is within it is not seen but the thick darkness itself is the transparent and translucent light, as the sages, blessed be their memory, said in the prayer, “[You appeared to them] in bright clouds,”^[9] and these are the sefirot. Their light in relation to His light is like the light of the candle in relation to the sun, and they are like a clear glass that shines and illuminates, showing to the eye what is within it. The tenth sefirah is the speculum that does not shine, and it is like a glass mirror, and the one who looks at it sees His image within it, and that which is within it is not seen outside it... Therefore this sefirah is called the cloud of glory, for the glory is concealed in it. The sages, blessed be their memory, called it the speculum that does not shine because of the glory that is hidden within it. When the Holy One, blessed be He, wills to talk to His prophets, this sefirah becomes filled from the inner glory, according to their level, and they hear the word, but the one who speaks is not seen by them, for He is hidden within it.^[10]

According to this text, the divine manifestations, referred to as “bright clouds” (‘arfale tobar), are the covering that hides the inner glory, kavod penimi. The function of the clouds, however, is not only to obstruct vision but to allow that which they conceal to be revealed. This is alluded to in the claim that the “thick darkness itself is the transparent and translucent light.” The specific locus of the vision is the tenth sefirah, the Shekhinah, the cloud of glory, for through it the lights above are seen. The content of the prophetic vision is thus related to the sefirotic emanations. More specifically, the explanation of the prophetic epiphany offered here preserves the concomitant concealment and disclosure of God, a dialectic that is presented along gender lines, The last of the divine hypostases is feminine in relation to the upper potencies and is thus designated by the talmudic expression “speculum that does not shine.” ^[11] That is, the Shekhinah vis-a-vis the rest of the sefirot, is characterized as pure passivity and receptivity; like a mirror or prism, the Shekhinabh reflects the luminous but invisible forms from above. The masculine potency is the inner glory that in and of itself is hidden but is revealed through the feminine potency, the cloud of glory. The erotic nuance is underscored by the comment that when God wills to talk to the prophets this emanation becomes filled with that inner glory.^[12] The concealed phallus, the ultimate and obsessional object of the mystic’s gaze, is specularized through the speculum that resists representational form, as it has nothing of its own.^[13] But lacking all form—indeed, constituting the very essence of lack and negativity—allows the feminine to disclose the form of the hidden glory. The divine woman is an “optical apparatus” that refracts the light and renders the veiled image visible, like the rainbow that is manifest in the covering of the cloud.^[14] The eye can contemplate the interior image, the speculum that shines, only through the external sheath, the speculum that does not shine. Here we come again upon the fundamental and enduring paradox in the kabbalistic understanding of the mechanics of vision and the implied iconicity of the divine: what has form is invisible and what is visible has no form.

The reinterpretation of prophecy along these lines is, indeed, rather widespread in kabbalistic literature. The implication of such claims is not merely theoretical, but reflects the assumption that contemplation of the sefirot was considered a vehicle for prophetic experience.^[15] It is appropriate to reiterate Abraham Abulafia’s description, mentioned in the introduction to this book, of some of the early theosophic kabbalists as “prophets for themselves.” ^[16] To be sure, Abulafia himself devised a mystical praxis that was primarily concerned with inducing a state of ecstasy defined as prophecy. The gist of his contention against the theosophic kabbalists concerns not the fact that they considered themselves worthy of prophecy but that the principal focus of their experience was visual—the main object of contemplation was the sefirotic lights—whereas for Abulafia and his followers priority was given to the auditory and verbal element of prophecy (even though visualization of the letters of the divine names in luminous or anthropomorphic forms is not lacking in the ecstatic kabbalah). Abulafia’s statement is significant, inasmuch as it accurately reflects the preoccupation of theosophic kabbalists with ocular imagery and the actual visualizing of these divine emanations, a process that they portrayed as a mode of prophecy.

In light of Abulafia’s remarks one would do well to recall that the Zohar itself occasionally refers to the kabbalists, disciples of R. Simeon bar Yohai (sometimes designated as maskilim, as will be discussed more fully below), as “true prophets” (zevi'e mehenine) upon whom the Holy Spirit dwells.^[17] In one context we read, “When the lower splendour, Adonai [i.e., the tenth gradation or Shekhinah] joins with the supernal splendour, YHWH [i.e., the sixth gradation or Tiferet| the hidden name [YAHDWNHY, ie., the combination of the two names^[18]) is produced, which the true prophets know and [by means of which] they [visually] contemplate the supernal splendour.”^[19] In a second passage, which describes the visualization technique of placing a vessel of water in the sunlight, reference is made again to the “true prophets” who contemplate the upper emanations (the central three sefirot symbolized by the celestial beasts that bear the throne) through the colors that are reflected in the speculum that does not shine, that is, the Shekhinah.^[20] I will discuss this passage at greater length in the following chapter; suffice it here to note that the term “true prophets” does not refer to ancient seers but rather to contemporary kabbalists who apprehend the sefirotic lights through specific means of visualization. That theosophic kabbalists assumed the posture of prophets and advocated the possibility of visionary experiences on a par with classical prophecy is evident in the “secret of prophecy” (sod ha-nevu'ah), one of a cluster of twenty-four kabbalistic secrets extant in manuscript, composed by Joseph Angelet,^[21] who was active in the fourteenth century:

At the beginning he sees that which is visible, and his power expands to the mind of the One who produced them, and he binds his spirit above, and draws the spring downward. Initially he thinks about the reasons for that which is revealed, and > afterwards, bit by bit, [he considers] that which is hidden. For this he needs [to be like] clear glass, so that foul material will not impede [his] comprehension... And the enlightened one of a good intellect (ha-maskil sekhel tov)^[22] should purify his body and sanctify it from impurity, and cleanse his palms, as it is written, “He who has clean hands” (Ps. 24:4), and he should purify his inside as his outside, as it is written, “and a pure heart” (ibid.). Then “he shall carry away (yissa’) a blessing” (ibid., 5), the secret of prophecy, as it says, “Portions were served (wa-yissa’ mas’ ot) from his table; but Benjamin’s portion was several times that of anyone else” (Gen. 43:34).^[23]

It is obvious that in the above passage Angelet is not talking about a process limited to the classical prophets in the ancient past of Israelite history. Rather, he is addressing “contemporary” prophets who are the enlightened mystics (maskilim). Angelet describes their prophetic experience as a contemplative ascent (reminiscent of the Geronese mystics, to be discussed in the following section) resulting in the binding of the human and divine minds, a process that is set into motion through visualization exercises, moving from what is revealed to what is hidden. Indeed, Angelet alludes to the fact that the mystic himself becomes a medium for visualization with his reference to the clear glass (zekhukhit levanah),^[24] a term he uses elsewhere in this text to convey the idea that a human being can become a physical vessel to receive the divine influx.^[25]

Finally, he specifies the need for purificatory rites that the mystic must undertake if he is to receive the prophetic inspiration. There is no distinction here between prophet and mystic, at least not in terms of the possibility of visually comprehending and being in communion with the divine. Although Scholem tries, from the vantage point of his own systematic categorization of the three stages in the historical development of religion, to distinguish between prophetic revelation and mystical experience, he admits that in the case of some sources it is often difficult to maintain such a distinction, for the prophet is often portrayed as the perfect mystic of any given ideological system. Yet, as will be seen momentarily, Scholem is not always consistent on this matter and often takes what seems to me to be a rather rationalistic approach in his treatment of the visionary aspect of the kabbalistic tradition.

---

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. “Commentary on Ezekiel’s Chariot,” p. 3; see sources cited and discussed by Farber on pp. 78 n. 12, 80 n. 1. ↩︎

2. ↩︎

3. Ha-mevyahed, literally, “one who unifies,” which I take to mean the one who is united with God, i.e., the mystic. ↩︎

4. Perush le-Sefer Yesirah, attributed to the RABaD, in Sefer Yesirah, 27a. For further discussion of this text, see Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, p. 106. ↩︎

5. On Scholem's passionate concern for origins, a concern he shared with Walter Benjamin, see the comments of Hanelman, Fragments of Redemption, p. 8. ↩︎

6. Couliano, Tree of Gnosis, pp. 1-22. ↩︎

7. See Wilson, “Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism,” p. 264. ↩︎

8. See Scholem, Origins, p. 81; idem, Kabbalah, pp. 99-100. ↩︎

9. This is taken from the beginning of the shofarot section recited in the musaf service on Rosh ha-Shanah. Cf. Goldschmidt, Mabzor la-Yamim Nora ini, vol. 1, Rosh ha-Shanah, p. 271. The expression ‘arfale tobar is employed in one of che prayers included in the Hekhalot text Ma‘aseh Merkavah; cf. Schater et al., Synopse, § 590. ↩︎

10. MS New York-JTSA Mic. 1727, fols. 18a—b. ↩︎

11. B. Yevamot: 49b, where Moses is contrasted with all other prophets, inasmuch as he alone saw through a speculum that shines, whereas they perceived the divine through a speculum that does not shine. From the context it is clear that seeing God through the speculum thar shines entails, paradoxically, a formless or imageless vision. ↩︎

12. See the similar formulation in Sefer ha-Bahir, § 130, where the land that is above—i.e., the feminine potency of the divine, corresponding to the land of Israel—is said to be filled from the glory of the name, i.e., the masculine potency. ↩︎

13. Here again my analysis has been influenced by the work of Irigaray. See especially Speculum of the Other Woman, pp. 144-151. On the concealed nature of the masculine Yesod contrasted with the revealed navure of the feminine Shekhinah, especially in zoharic literature, see Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 139-140 (English trans., pp. 26~28). See chapter 7, n. 41 of the present work. ↩︎

14. ↩︎

15. It is clear from the relevant literature that the designation of Shekhinah as the locus of vision was not merely a theoretical explanation of biblical prophecy but was considered the medium for mystical visions as well. In one striking example from an actual mystical diary from the period, the 'Osar Ḥayyim of Isaac of Acre, the author reports that a spiritual and distinguished disciple who was also a colleague (talmid ḥaver ruhani watiq) reported that he had a dream in which he saw Isaac writing the words “in the tenth year Elijah the prophet came to me.”; Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, p. 234. Isaac interprets “the tenth year” as a reference to the Shekhinah, the tenth sefirah, also alluded to by the fact that there were seven words in the statement and Shekhinah is the seventh of the lower sefirot that correspond to the seven days of the week. Isaac’s point, then, is that the Shekhinah is the locus of the gilluy eliyabu, the revelation of Elijah. ↩︎

16. Abulafia’s letter We-Zot li-Yebudah, p. 16; also cited by del, Mystical Expertence, p. 77. ↩︎

17. See Zohar 2:1 54a; Heschel, “On the Holy Spirit,” p. 180 n. 24. See also Zohar 2:190b, where the spirit of prophecy is said to have rested on Simeon bar Yohai, referred to as “the holy lamp.” In thar context it is evident that the prophetic spirit is connected more specifically with the disclosure of secrets. An actual practice to induce prophecy underlies the description of the garment (italbush) in Joseph Gikatilla’s Sod Yod-Gummel Middot, in Scholem, Catalogus, p. 224. Another attestation in late-thirteenth-sentury Castile of a cechnique being utilized to attain prophetic illumination ts found in Moses of Burgos’s introduction to the kabbalistic reworking of the commentary on the forty-two-Jetter name. See G. Scholem, “R. Moses of Burgos, the Disciple of R. Isaac,” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 56-58 (in Hebrew). In this case the means of achieving such a state were related specifically to recitation of the divine names, reminiscent of the German Pietists and Abraham Abulafia, who may have been the teacher of Moses of Burgos. See Idel, Mystical Experience. p. 19. ↩︎

18. See Verman, “The Development of Yihudim in Spanish Kabbalah,” pp. 32-33. ↩︎

19. Zohar 1:110. ↩︎

20. Zohar Hadash 39d. See also Zohar 2:245a. ↩︎

21. On the attribution of these kabbalistic secrets to Joseph Angelet, see Idel, “Types of Redemptive Activity in the Middle Ages,” p. 264 n. 46. See also the comments of Liebes in “How the Zohar Was Written,” pp. 64-65 n. 293 (English trans., p. 225 n. 298). ↩︎

22. The expression is based on 2 Chron. 30:22. ↩︎

23. MSS Oxford-Bodleian 1630, fols. 57a—b; New York-JTSA Mic. 1915, tols. 26a—b. ↩︎

24. This term had already been used in one talmudic passage in the sense of a medium for visualization; cf. B. Megillah 6a, reiterated in Bemidbar Rubbah 13:16. See also the intriquing comment in P. Sukkah 4:7, 54d, to the effect chat since the destruction of the Temple, coagulated wine (yayin qarush; cf. B. Sukkah 12a) and clear glass (zekhukhit levanah) have ceased to exist. In the continuation of the passage it is further explained that the reference is specifically to clear glass that is layered or coiled up (she-hayetah mitqappelet). Cf. Midrash "Eikhah Rabbah 4:2, ed. Buber, p. 144; B. Sotah 48b. See also comment of Rashi cited in chapter 5, n. 334. ↩︎

25. Cf. MS Oxford-Bodleian 1610. fol. 55a, where Aaron, Moses, and Miriam are said to have been “like clear glass, prepared to receive the divine overflow that illuminated them.” See also fol. S5b, where the talmudic statement regarding the disappearance of clear glass with the destruction of the Temple (see previous note) is reinterpreted along this line. ↩︎