Hidden Heart

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Bahya’s heartfelt esoteric intellectualism

Rabbenu Bahya Ibn Pakuda wrote a philosophical book very different from Maimonides, Halevi and Gabirol. His thought jives more with Saadia who we will return to. Bahya foremost a dayan and erudite thinker sought to empower the religious mind and soul through intersecting religion and philosophy. Philosophy was an aid to religious growth and reason unearthed the cosmic religious components into rational comprehension. The neoplatonic influence on the Ibn Gabirol and Bahya diverted from Maimonides' Aristotelianism. The philosophical root also morphed a varied style of writing. Bahya’s goal was to demonstrate the philosophic power in deepening one’s piety and faith. 

Bahya was motivated to add some spirit to the legalistic matter of religion. In his view, the talmudic allegories are akin to philosophical treatment. The power of intellect was to be integrated into the service of God. Tradition was one measure of religiosity and reason was the other: a heteronomous branch and an autonomous one. The intellect and its powerful logic is central to discerning the divine will. Maimonides would surely agree that the autonomous measure is necessary to drive away those wishing to prop themselves as the divine messengers. It is not just intelligence but wisdom. 

Bahya believed scientific inquiry was divine will. Discovering the depth of divine creation draws one closer to him. In no small irony the intellects association of science with God only empowers his love for God. Revelation is itself rational wisdom transmitted to man. Even when given to man, it is not the end of the will. The constant discussing of the divine will in the study halls perpetuates the intellectual debate. Bahya like his contemporary Judah Halevi do not fit into any school nor the neoplatonism of Ibn Gabirol nor the aristotelianism of Maimonides. Baha’s neoplatonism moved to his questionable dualism and his tripartite attributes akin to Avicenna. Yet it is not totally neoplatonic. He reassures a personal living God and was inclined toward an ascetic style of living. 

Despite all this neoplatonic behavior, he quotes Saadia, the father of the rationalist school most frequently and his voice of reason is identical to Maimonides. Perfection is with intellectual worship, the heart is the core of the intellect, evil is from man’s emotions, his intellect is distinct in its divine relationship, the intellect is the apex to prophecy, actualised reason equals immortality, reason though is insufficient to comprehend god. The harmonisation of faith and reason was the focal goal of medieval Jewry. Though Bahya and Maimonides go about their synthesis differently: the former through metaphysics and the latter through aristotelianism, the bedrock of intellectual prowess is congruent. 

Given the prevalent similarities what does this mean for his book itself. There are apparent contradictions. In a similar vein to Maimonides, he employs dialectics of sorts to deploy his thought. His notion of contradictions is promoting something and then demoting it indirectly. The openness of God preceding duality is a temporal precedence abolishing duality, ultimately ignoring God’s existence. Another oral matter is his position on creation that so far this has been a cryptic situation for many. Bahya’s creation is incomplete as a defence against Aristotle’s theory of eternity. There is common ground amongst the Andalusian world. To bolster this is to note his reliance on Aristotle’s prime mover who is absent from man’s affairs yet he still wishes for a personal God. In other occasions he roots for providence via repentance. Additionally, he joins the heavens and the sublunar realm implying that the universe and the celestial spheres were created similarly, both of fire. Yet later on, he maintains a higher being’s spirituality in the sublunar realm analogously attributing it to the human soul and the heavens the body. There may be a nafkah mina or it is the esoteric orality persisting here. 

Bahya’s esotericism removes his neoplatonic interest as marginal and his accordance with Maimonides as a statement of Jewish consistency. His esoteric style is also similar dialectally presenting continuous dichotomies that hide the true avenue of Jewish theology. To some extent his lack of argumentation is the point. People simply know the truth. The sensus comminus is aware intuitively, even if they cannot wrap their heads around it.