I would like to talk about the role of the imagination in mystical vision. But before I do, I would like to express my gratitude to an amazing Kabbalist by the name of Elliot Wolfson. Much of the material of my talk, and its inspiration come from his book, The Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism. A journey guided by Elliot Wolfson is indeed one in which unimaginable riches are there for the worthy.
This discussion contains some of my thoughts on the section titled "The Ontology of Light" from Chapter Six: "Visionary Gnosis and the Role of the Imagination in Theosophic Kabbalah".
Discussion Regarding The Light
In order to do this, I want to follow Elliot's trail, and start with [an exploration into light, which has always been an intrinsic element used in the description of the mystical experience. But firstly, let us spend some time investigating the ontology of light.
Ontology means the investigation of the reality of something. Looking at it from the question of what light really is - both physically and metaphorically, deepens the possibilities inherent in that question.
Of course, our focus is on light being used so often to describe experiences that are, in all probability, not "real", but in, what we assume, is some imaginary realm of perception. What is its association with the mystical experience. Why is it that we use light itself is so assciated with the mystical experience? Could I even go so far as "the ontology of light gives shape to and generates the mystical experience - which is essentially a process of illumination." That is in itself an illuminating statement.
Fortunately or unfortunately, this is my only problem with my readings of Wolfson's work. Some of his statements, like the one above, send me into an intellectual and sometimes emotional exploration. It brought me once again into the question of light, something the most eminent scientific minds of our times have struggled with. These giants have provided us with an intriguing and fascinating description of what light is - mainly by describing what they can capture of its fleeting nature. How it moves, how it splits, what its wavelength is, how it bounces, and so on. It is like describing the amazing goals of a football star - but no one really knows how he does it. So it is with light.
As with most things, there is not only one perspective, one road we can take to reach our goal. If we could only agree on the goal, and not argue about the road so much, perhaps it would produce more harmony amongst us. As has been often my case, I first encountered light through the eyes of Logos, the classical physics version then later the quantum version. In the former version, light was continuous, and travelled in straight lines. In the latter version it was packetised and travelled in waves. That expose itself carried some intriguing mysteries.
But there was a third, more hidden and mysterious explanations that came out of the ancient texts, and today prompting the investigation into not the nature of light, as science is wont to do, but the actual ontology, what is it in/of light that has this influence upon us? Light - such a light word - and yet without it, we are ineffective for the most part, and would not be able to last very long. This is where we hard heading, into this, a different perspective, a different way to look at light. Not necessarily from the view of the recipient, but perhaps closer to what is the source.
Let me give a hint. If there is no light you cannot see. If you see something, even in a place where there is obviously no light - or light as we experience it in our lives - we will still use the metaphors of light and vision (its recipient) to express it - for how else could we do that?
Our journey begins from acknowledging the frequent use of light to depict the nature of the Divine, as well as experiences that would be described as some sort of experiential interaction with the Divine. Indeed there even seems a deeper connection, in that what is conceived of as the ultimate nature of being, light, is used to describe what occurs in a mystical experience of illumination, or enlightenment.
Ezekiel's Chariot
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]
Ezekiel's vision of the chariot upon which sits "the image of a man", is one of the principle sources of the visionary and mystical expressions in Kabbalah. Here we have a commentary on this vision, invoking the names of G-d to have a similar experience. What is not commented upon is the mixture of sound and light - for the names can both be visualised and sounded - the secret is in the name, and to be able to vocalise it, and thus envision it, correctly being of utmost importance. The third component is movement. An interesting aspect to mention, is that in most cases the focus was on one of the actions - to the exclusion of the others. Envisioning was done in stillness and silence. Vocalisation was generally done in community, but did not require movement, though both movement and visualisation could be a product thereof. And movement, or dance, was generally done in silence, though often to the accompaniment of music - whether vocal and/or instrumental.
Footnotes
“Commentary on Ezekiel’s Chariot,” p. 3; see sources cited and discussed by Farber on pp. 78 n. 12, 80 n. 1. ↩︎