Atzmus: and the Theology of Lubavitch Messianism.

 

‘At the centre of the sun it is dark.’ – the Previous Rebbe

 

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (also known as ‘The Lubavitcher Rebbe’ or just ‘the Rebbe’) was the seventh leader of the Chabad- Lubavitch Chassidic dynasty, which dates back more than three hundred years.

 

Voted ‘the most influential Jewish figure of the twentieth century’ by the readers of the Jewish Chronicle and several online Jewish magazines, coming in front of Einstein, Freud, and Ben-Gurion. Rabbi M.M. Schneerson has been the single most important religious figure in post Holocaust Jewry, his charismatic personality, radical teachings, beliefs and worldwide outreach movement has profoundly effected almost every aspect of Judaism and world Jewry.

 

Born in Nikolayev, Russia, 1902[1], and the son of a well respected but controversial Kabbalistic Rabbi, he married a daughter of Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak Schneerson,[2] (the sixth leader of the movement).

In the mid 1920’s and early 30’s Much to the dismay and disapproval of his father-in-laws wishes. the Rebbe went to University, and studied The Natural Sciences, Neo-Kantanism and the Classics in the University of Berlin and physics, mathematic and engineering in the Sorbonne.

 

He, with most of the Schneerson family narrowly escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto and moved to America in the 1940’s, where he soon inherited leadership of this small but extremely influential and some might say overly intellectual Hasidic group.

 

In the 44 years of his leadership he helped to shape and reinvent the face of post-war Jewry by spearheading one of the most radical assaults against complacency and assimilation ever seen.  His now worldwide movement and philosophy has fundamentally shaped the way Judaism sees and understands itself.  However, it is his last and overtly messianic message (the late 1980s and early 1990s) that has been his most radical, controversial and as yet unexplored contribution to post-war Jewish philosophy and theology. He passed away in Brooklyn, New York, June 12th 1994 (3rd of Tamuz,) after an epic series of minor heart attacks, strokes, and other major internal organ failures, (that all in all, lasted more than two years) leaving no obvious successor, and his followers in a whirl of confused Messianic frenzy.

 

It is not since Shabbatai Sevi, Abraham Abulafia, Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, and Jesus has such a monumentally important influential religious Jewish, and messianic figure walked the face of the earth. 

 

In Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s view of redemption, the normative duality and distinctions between God and the world are swept away by a revelation of God, which is beyond traditional definitions. This new and arguably monistic aspect of God is called Atzmus. 

 

To begin with, I feel it might be necessary to introduce the term ‘Atzmus’ and the context of this term as it is generally understood within the world of Jewish Mysticism.

 

I was recently informed that within the traditional Kabbalistic worldview, even the mention of ‘Atzmus’ was actually prohibited. That there was an unwritten agreement not to discuss it at all, lest one become, or lead others to heresy perhaps?

 

Atzmus, as a term seems to be relatively new, approximately only 300 years old. Although earlier dates would be speculative on my part as I have not investigated its genesis thoroughly. Whether and how this term, its meaning, and context have changed is generally for the moment not my point of focus. Rather, I will attempt to discuss how I understand it, in its relatively new context of Lubavitch messianism, and therefore within the whole corpus of lectures and discourses of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, between 1951-1992.

 

The word ‘Atzmus’ itself originally comes from the word ‘Etzem,’ meaning bone, or core, (marrow) and therefore Atzmus[3] is core-ness or essence. Some may be tempted for the sake of simplicity to equate ‘Atzmus’ with ‘God’, and in some sense this might be true, but that would not explain the need for a new word.

 

But, this is not a simple re-naming, it is however a re-conception a re-invention of God, a Hassidic, Kabbalistic and Messianic re-conception of God, perhaps to a more authentically Jewish reality or perhaps to something else entirely?

 

With the rise of Hassidism and with it the continued popularisation of Lurianic Kabbalah particularly within the Chabad School, the map of the metaphysical universe grew, and as debate and discussion of its form and shape continued and accelerated, the Unknowable God became quite knowable.

 

As a result the space left for an unknowable and transcendent God became smaller and harder to find, the logic of the Kabbalistic metaphysic resulted in the eviction of a real and transcendent ‘God’ from almost any part of the metaphysical universe. The unfolding of spiritual worlds that emanated from the divine was however wonderful and enlightening, still ultimately limited, even in the highest realm of God’s ‘body’ (so to speak) mystical and philosophical explorers had marked out, drawn and described its landscape. 

 

This type of discussion, which was based on a logic of cause and effect, could in theory explain away the layers of the unknown, and began to eat away at the very foundations of faith, the belief in a truly Transcendent God. The bastions of this discourse had to explain how and why, even though they could explain the inner workings of the God-Head there was still to be an aspect of God that was truly beyond, in essence transcendent and unknowable.

 

This is where and why Atzmus came into being, Atzmus was the Essence of God that could not be explained, it was beyond the nature of cause and effect, transcending anything that had been discussed until that point. Atzmus was to be the Absolute, beyond the limitations of higher and lower, of potential and actual, it was God recaptured, saved from the overworking minds of Hassidic Lurianic Kabbalists. It would be the key word, the unknowable that would not be discussed, the line beyond which one dared not venture.

 

The problem of attempting to define Atzmus therefore is almost ironic in nature because it by definition is not meant to be understood or described, the term intentionally avoids categorisations, limitations and definitions of any sort; in this sense, it is not only a problem with words but to some extent with the very use of logic as well. I feel that even the ‘logic’ of paradox may not be fully adequate either.

 

Atzmus therefore as a theological term in comparison to the multitude of invented Kabbalistic terms or even biblical divine names which traditionally, symbolically express attributes and characters of God, Atzmus is radically different, it expresses nothing of the divine, but would be/is the divine itself.

 

Atzmus is the I AM of God.

 

‘…according to the verse ‘I am God’ that ‘I am’ is Atzmus ‘Or En Sof,.’[4]

 

Even if we are tempted to use the term to describe God’s ‘ultimate transcendence,’ which I feel in some examples could be correct we will come across major difficulties. As the Rebbe quite clearly states: ‘… the blessed Mahusso and Atzmusso… it is impossible to say about it that it is the aspect of transcendence, also not even the aspect of distant transcendence and other such terms.  Because the blessed Mahusso and Atzmusso isn't within the boundaries of ideas at all…’ [5], that is, it is beyond any definition and cognitive characterisations even those of ‘transcendence.’ In its attempt to push God into the realms of true transcendence, this form of Hassidic thought, pushed it beyond even the realm, and traditional definitions of ‘transcendence’.

 

Despite the possibility that Atzmus might be synonymous with a mystical definition of God that both flirts with Pantheism and radical Otherness, the current schools of translators of Hassidic philosophy seem to lean more towards Pantheism than a God of Radical Otherness. Each translation expressing a slight but important shift in emphasis, and differing in use of the words: Essence, Being, Reality and Existence, and variations of these depending on the context. The common denominator, the underlying theme that connects these words in a sense points both to an ultimate transcendence however mainly towards that of a this-worldly imminence, reasons for which will be explained. 

 

What does for me seem the more commonly used and preferred translation within the movement, would be ‘Essential Existence’ however this translation is also an explanation, but one that is totally inadequate. Essential Existence means to denote that Atzmus is ‘Essentially All that Exists’, that Atzmus is at the essence of all existence, however, this use of language implies by its very use of ‘essential’ in contrast to ‘unessential’, which implies a whole world of ‘otherness’ that can be distinguished from the essence?

 

Nevertheless, Essential Existence for some reason sounds better, even though it is technically inaccurate as a thorough translation. What it does do however is point our attention to what is really meant, the direction of the term is not pointed towards the heavens but rather towards Existence. What it is saying from the way the movement understands it, is that every thing that ‘exists’ that either feels that it exists, the actual and very factuality of its existence, by definition is an expression of Atzmus; Atzmus is therefore tied up with every aspect of existence in essence.

 

The logic that is used seems at first to be quite simple; and it discusses the realm and definition of the ‘infinite’. Traditionally within this movement and perhaps the world this rather juvenile discussion of infinity claims that infinity is limited to being infinite. This all seems logical enough so far, however, the point that this form of Hassidism questions and attempts to tackle is that; if the infinite is limited to being infinite, then it is by definition limited! And therefore not truly infinite at all! Because infinity does not have any limitations. It is this logic that I argue is at the heart of the question of Atzmus. If ‘infinity’ is truly infinite, then it must by definition not be limited to the realm of the ‘infinite,’ rather it must be able to, and is in fact chiefly expressed in, its ability to be finite! Therefore, the finite, namely the material substance of the world, is seen as an expression of, if not the expression, of the ultimate power of the infinite, (Choach Ha Atzmus.)

 

What we are left with after submitting to this logic is an infinite that can be limited if it so chooses, therefore, God can create a stone that even He cannot pick up?

 

This apparent ‘limitation’ (that is when the infinite chooses to be finite) therefore, far from being limiting is in fact and in effect one of the greatest expressions of God’s infinite power, as it is expressed through His ability to limit Himself. 

 

Traditional equation: 

Infinity = infinite

Finitude = finite

 

New equation:

Infinity = (if it is not able to be finite) is therefore = limited and not absolutely infinite. Subsequently; (traditional) Infinity = (traditional) Finite

New equation 2:

True Infinity is able to be (traditional) Finite

{but now transforms it into a New Finite}

New Finite > Old Infinite (because it is infinity as expressed in finitude)

 

So the world now seems to be turned on its head, ‘infinity’ as it is understood traditionally is now limiting and possibly more limited than the finite!?

 

This discussion of Infinity although not explicitly expounded, as far as I am aware directly and in a linier format within the Rebbe’s works, the formula I have provided does nevertheless, in my mind, seem to be a prerequisite to and a foundation of much of our discussion with regards to the subject of Atzmus.

 

However, Atzmus is, and the whole theological subject are far more complicated than this simple equation of logic. Nevertheless the aforementioned formula does hold true for many of the subsequent theological ramifications, for example: if we equate and perhaps only superficially, finite with physicality and infinite with ‘spiritual’, the equation produces some interesting results. Atzmus is found more in the physical than the spiritual.

 

Within the schools of Jewish mysticism, and Hassidism in particular the world has traditionally been antagonistic towards spirituality, the revelation of God and the Jews in general. The ‘world’ has been an unfair obstacle, which battled against the Jews divine mission, it was not only the local gentile nations that seemed to be antagonistic, but they themselves were seen as representatives of the world itself, the physical stuff of the world, that it physicality, was by its very nature in opposition to the divine. Physicality itself screamed ‘I am!’ and independence from God, which clearly disturbed the Jewish mystics ability to synthesise their belief in God’s ultimate unity with this opposing reality.

 

Declarations therefore issued forth in response to the physical worlds vehement declaration of independence from God, the founder of Habad-Lubavitch Rabbi Shneur Zalman claiming that this world didn’t actually exist, it was nothing, and we should take no notice of it. It was a dream within the mind of God, The world does not exist! Song, mantras, imprinted themselves in the minds and hearts of hundreds of dedicated Hassidim, ‘Itz doch altz Hevel Havolim, En od milvado!’ – roughly translated as ‘It is all Vanity of Vanities, (Breath of a Breath, [nothing]) there is nothing but God!’ 

 

He therefore argued that Tzim Tzum the divine contraction and concealment of God’s Infinite light, that made ‘room’ for the possibility of ‘creation’ was not literal, but only allegorical, the world therefore was also not literal, it was not real, it was not in anyway a separate entity from God, but rather was still like a thought in God’s mind, ‘completely as nothing literally’.

 

RSZ says  ‘…it is not that the world came into existence out of nothing, that is from Nothing into Something, but rather, in truth it is the other way around, Nothing [the world] came into existence out of Something [God].’  

 

Unfortunately there has been some major teething problems, with academia’s general understanding of traditional Lubavitch Hasidic philosophy, for example Rachel Elior’s article titled ‘Habad: Anti-Spiritualism as a Quiet-ist-ic value’ argues that Rabbi Shneur Zalman the founder of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, and his most famous work the ‘Tanya’ both have Anti-Spiritual leanings. This Here I feel I have to point out that she and many other academics naively use an explanation of Tanya called ‘lessons in Tanya’ without realising, acknowledging or recognising that this is in fact the Rebbe’s Rabbi M. M. Schneerson’s explanation and interpretation although through attributed to Yoseph Wineberg and others on the Rebbe’s Editorial board.

 

This oversight, is characteristic of academia’s naivety and overly romantic fascination with Hassidism. This unacceptable attitude, leads to a blind acceptance of the Rebbe’s re-interpretation and historical and philosophical revisionism, as the authentic and legitimate understanding of the text; free from embellishment and or political/religious or philosophical agendas, which it is definitely not. Surprisingly the ‘normative’ reading of RSZ’s is quite strongly Anti- Physical and very much pro-spiritual, his emphasis on action ‘Just Do It!’ which Elior believes is ‘Anti-Spiritual’ in reality correlates to and expresses RSZ’s belief that the physical is on the whole inherently negative and needs to be purified. It expresses a hate for physicality, as the Hassid is encouraged to war against the ‘body’ the ‘self’ and the animal soul, in order to ‘accomplish great things in higher worlds’.

 

Strangely enough in ‘The Paradigms of Yesh and Ayin in Hasidic Thought,’ by Rachel Elior, she herself explains that the RSZ believes that ‘the whole purpose of creation of the worlds from Ayin to Yesh, is to reverse them from Yesh to Ayin.’ This is very much in line with Scholem’s belief that Hassidism and ‘Devakut’ in particular, desires the destruction of the physical world, "makes the 'concrete' (reality) disappear," he emphases the "destructive quality" where the tangible world is "stripped of its corporeality" and according to him it "annihilates reality"[6].

 

The Hassidic mystics experience of God which in some way has undoubtedly informed and shaped its theology was and is tenuously tied up with the idea and experience of ‘devakut’.

 

Devakut, is a meditative process either an ongoing meditation or one that is specifically contemplated on during prayer or whilst practising a religious ritual, it is primarily concerned with the absorption of the self into the divine, and on the whole, the sense of self or in later versions the sense of separateness from God arguably disappears. Chapters were written  (particularly in the above mentioned ‘Tanya’) chastising the ego, (the sense of separation from God), as the root of all evil, the ‘Yesh’ the ‘Ich’ the individual had to be overcome, inline with most spiritual doctrines, that see the ego as either evil or an impediment towards a more ‘spiritual life’.

 

In contrast and in a sense returning to out main subject, The Rebbe posits that the ego is primarily an expression of the ultimate ego, i.e. God. The Ego that shouts ‘I am!’ is a reflection of the true ‘I am’ and therefore something not only potentially holy but actually holy.[7]

 

‘… The existence of the created self is the existence of the true Self.’[8]

 

‘The reason the created being/self feels himself as if he has no reason or cause which preceded him, God forbid, is because he is brought into being from Atzmus, which [because] the self/beingness of Atzmus has no reason or cause which preceded Him…[because] there is only Him alone.

 

…So too in the future to come; the true and inner [reality] of all things will be revealed; … that the true source of the created self/being is that of the true Self  [God’s] and that [it] has no reason or cause… and this is also true now.’[9] 

 

Previously Hassidic philosophy had described physical Existence and the world as claiming an independence of being, from that of God, was innately antagonistic towards the idea of God, almost as if it said ‘I have no creator!’ The Rebbe on the other hand saw this not as something that was in opposition to God but primarily as an expression of the Godhead itself. The long-standing question within Hassidic philosophy, about the source of physical existence is answered by the Rebbe.

 

The Rebbe although not overturning the Alter Rebbe’s (RSZ’s) position, made his quite clear, ‘…In my mind it makes more sense to say that Tzim Tzum was kibshuto/ literal…’

 

That the world actually exists!

 

He explains that physical reality cannot have been created via an evolution, of course and effect from the infinite Godhead to finite materiality.  Rather there is a quantum leap from the essence of the divine, bringing into creation the physical. The result of this conclusion is that there is a unique and intrinsic relationship between physicality and the divine essence.

 

The teleological connection of this idea with the general messianic theme is only understood when one realises that, this ‘reality’ is only revealed in the messianic era, where the physical itself reveals this divine essence, however the Rebbe encouraged his followers ‘to live with Moshiach’, the call to ‘open ones eyes…and see that the Messianic Era was already here!’ This is not only connected to and with the acceptance of the messianic era but moreover it is possibly a call to the awareness of Atzmus.

 

As the following quotes demonstrate:

 

‘…In the true and final redemption, “One man will no longer teach his friend... because ALL WILL KNOW ME!”[10] More than this, in a way of seeing, “And God appeared to him,”... “and our eyes will see our teacher,” [11] a New Creation.’[12] 

 

‘Though there are differences between great and small, yet when it comes to ‘knowing Me’ -knowing Atzmus, the very essence of God -all will be equal.[13] ‘…For they shall know Me,’…This refers to the actual revelation of Me, no less; it does not refer to the knowledge and comprehension of the Torah which includes the knowledge of divinity.[14]

 

 

 

‘Atzmus’: Revelation Beyond Revelation.

 

Atzmus is and could have only been invented by a deep and profound form of Mysticism, one that was on one hand intellectual and on the other highly experiential. In the following quote the Rebbe explains that the natural world, as it is, the very laws of Nature are a greater miracle than any revealed Miracle. 

 

“… ‘He alone’ makes great miracles[15] and our sages say[16] that even the beneficiary of the miracle isn’t aware of it.’ … The Tzemach Tzedek explains, that the source of miracles dressed up in nature, are from a higher place than those which transcend nature… so that the source of miracles that are completely dressed up in nature, so much so that even the beneficiary isn’t aware [that a miracle is taking place,] are from this aspect of ‘alone.’[That is, known to God ‘alone’ that they are miracles]…And [therefore] the main innovation [in the messianic era] is not that there will be miracles, but that the Holy One Blessed Be He, will show us these miracles, because [these] miracles already exist now.’[17]

 

‘…These miracles are not wondrous at all and the intellect comprehends them… they are constant and everlasting…and dressed up in nature… and more than this their source is from, concealment that transcends revelation…just as his Essence (Atzmuso) isn’t in the boundary of revelation.’[18]

 

Atzmus paradoxically does not, nor is it, a revelation of anything, and one can even go as far as to say that Atzmus could even be a revelation of nothing, and therefore is not a ‘revelation’ at all, in the conventional sense, or paradoxically possibly the highest revelation of all. This reference to the revelation of nothing is not a mystical No-Thing, or even the Kabbalistic ‘Void’ that preceded creation. Rather it means that it is an awareness (or revelation) that in the apparent reality of there being ‘no openly revealed Godliness,’ is itself proof of the greatest revelation of God’s power to limit Himself, and therefore the greatest revelation of all. 

 

It seems from my investigation of this idea that it works on at least two levels, there is the reality of Atzmus and our own personal and subjective awareness or realisation of Atzmus.  It seems that ‘revelation’ is not something that is empirical but definitely a subjective realisation of the objective?  Revelation is something that takes place within the person (mind?) well revelation of Atzmus, at least, because Atzmus is already everywhere equally, there is no place that is void of it. there is nothing that isn’t Atzmus, revelation therefore does not require any specific miracle or place but an awareness on behalf of the individual, in fact a miracle would disrupt, ones ability to truly appreciate the full power of Atzmus, that it is beyond the need for ‘revelation’ at least in the conventional sense.

 

 

 

This belief that Atzmus is not a ‘revelation’ could arguably be explained (as opposed to any claim of externally revealed empiricism) as a personal and ‘internal realisation.’ That the ‘darkness of the world,’ is only an apparent darkness, but is in fact a more authentic revelation of God than the first. Atzmus is therefore a revelation that is beyond the need for ‘revelation,’ as the next quote attempts to explain:

 

‘…The decreasing light of the moon, is only a reduction on the level of [perceived] ‘light’ (which is merely a reflection of the Sun) [this reduction in light, is] because of [an increasing]… proximity to the Essence (Etzem) which transcends the source of light; however, it is therefore not a reduction in revelation, since… there continues additionally… the revelation of the Essence’ [which is beyond light!].[19] 

 

‘At the centre of the sun it is dark.’ – the Previous Rebbe

 

‘…this darkness is the greatest revelation of light, that which transcends the need for revelation, [and is therefore dark]…’ – the Rebbe

 

 

In conclusion

 

This world as it is ‘warts and all,’ in the apparent, reality that there is no God, that ‘miracles don’t happen in our time’, is in reality the most quintessential expression of God’s divine essence, of Atzmus. That this apparently limited world is in fact truly infinite, that our lives however limited are actually our personal infinity, every moment, and every molecule, the very fabric of existence has ultimate meaning as it is. Everything therefore is Atzmus, included in Atzmus, and if you look around feel the chair you are sitting on, the things you see, the air you breathe, the you that sees, stuff of the world, the world itself, all of this you! included, every molecule is Atzmus. In reality, there is no division, no difference, no higher or lower, better or worse, there is only Atzmus, what we are: is in a sense is: God experiencing God. Personal redemption is therefore in someway dependant on this personal realisation.  That redemption in part is dependant on our own ability to accept ourselves and the world as it is before there can be any actual changes. Perhaps that very our acceptance of the world and existence as it is, as the Ultimate God reality and experience and this realisation, could possibly be in a sense enough for there to be a personal redemption, that triggers a more universal One? 

 

Contrasts and comparisons maybe drawn to certain formations and types of Buddhism, early Christianity, and others, although the unique taste and flavour of Atzmus is distinctly Jewish in style and in its mannerisms. This maybe arguably a purely cultural phenomena, that it may in conclusion not differ from this or that eastern or western theology of philosophy. Despite the legitimacy of these claims, the upbringing, the culture in which it grew makes it a fascinating and uniquely distinguishable Jewish ‘God’ of the late twentieth century, and possibly the popular successor in the twenty-first and on.

 

In the whirling relativity of an equalitative post-modern world of comparative religions, the significance of the Rebbe’s messianic philosophy can be easily marginalized in the rawring herds of self-proclaimed messiahs. However, The religious, theological and philosophical prospects of a philosophy of realised eschatology in a powerfully influential Jewish religious movement cannot be simply marginalized as some post-modern cult phenomena (although it is arguably that as well), but must be examined and explored thoroughly. From a Judao-centric perspective, the significance of his teachings cannot be underestimated, as they will inevitably determine the religious future not only of the Lubavitch movement, but also that of the Jewish people and the world at large.

 

 



[1] 18th of April (1lth of Nisan,)

[2] Born 1880/5640 USSR moved to NY in 1940’s Died 1950.

[3] There is a current debate between translators of Hassidic Philosophy ( Uria Kaplun, and R.Yitzchak Ginsburg and Asher Crispe) as how to translate this word, ( as it is used in different contexts through out Hassidic thought the word its self come from the root word "Etzem," meaning in modem Hebrew bone, and is originally used in Hassidic thought to descried the "Essence of God." It is usually found in this context used with the word "Atmuss" or "Mahut" which means Being/Essence or Existence.  So "Atzmuss Mahuss,/ Atzmut v’ Mahut" would be translated something close to ‘Essence of (All or God's) Existence,’ Existence being All that Is, or as I prefer to use "Essential Existence."

[4] Sefer Maamarim Meluket 2 p.89,  18th (Chai ) Elul 5747 1987.

[5] Sefer Maamorim Melukat 2 p.37 11th of Nissan, 5747/ 1987 (original 5742/ 1982)

[6] in his article entitled 'Martin Buber's Interpretation of Hassidism,’ in his Major Trends

[7] Sefer HaSichot 5752 when the Rebbe talks of a drunken Gentile.

[8] Sefer HaSichot 5751, Parashat Naso p.588

[9] Sefer Maamarim Meluket 1, p.66, Baisy L’ganni 5719 -1959.

[10] Jeremiah 31:33.

[11] The Rebbe was probably talking of the Previous Rebbe, his father-in-law Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak Schneerson, but has obviously been interpreted to mean that the Rebbe knew of his own eventual demise and was prophesising of his eventual return.

[12] Sefer Ha Sichot 5752 /1992, v. 1,p.93.

[13] Sefer HaSichot 5748 vol 1, p.220.

[14] Sefer HaSichot 5749 vol 1, p.159.

[15] Psalms 136:4

[16] Nidda 31a

[17] Sefer Ha Miamorrim 5 pp. 307-10, 28th Sivan 5751, originally said on Achron Shell Pesach 1978

[18] ibid.

[19] Sefer Ha Sichot 5752 p.160