Mystical Religiosity

By: Jonathan Seidel

Is Maimonides a mystic?: mysticism as a spectrum  

For some time rationalists and mystics have debated where does Maimonides really stand. Mystics have attempted to redefine Maimonides as a mystic in disguise. If Maimonides makes mystical claims he must be a mystic failing to account for the inherent mysticism in religion. Rather Maimonides’ mysticism is regulated to a mystical spectrum.

Maimonides is a rationalist. While there are aspects where he remarks some mystical unity or other mystical outlets, his prioritisation of the intellect promotes rationalism. There is no doubt Maimonides was mystical but he was no mystic, at least in the colloquial sense. He naturalised much of the biblical order. Prophecy was naturalised, the celestial sphere was naturalised. Logic was the primary motor. There were evidently mystical parts as a religious man. It would be quite odd for a religious Jew to claim he wasn’t mystical. Maimonides believed in God and prayed to him daily. He believed in revelation and miracles. Miracles may be implausible and even naturalised but there remains a divine factor that transcends the universe. There is spirituality. All of this suggests a strong rational pull. A strong natural pull. Yet he was open to mystical notions even if fervently opposed to more extensive mysticism. Maimonides was mystical but he was no mystic.

Mysticism is a spectrum. The line runs from naturalists to Kabbalists. From believers to experiencers to metaphysicians. The level of mysticism grows with the progressive accumulation of spiritual motifs. Less free will and more mythological figures. Maimonides famous other half, Nahmanides finds himself more down the line. Someone who accepted science but through a divine vein. He was open to more celestial notions and embodied the religious experience. While he did regress from some of his extreme positions towards the end of his life, he regarded the world as divine rather than scientifically separate from God. Plotting Halevi, Ran, Hasdai, Abarbanel along the the spectrum will probably be past Maimonides but before Nahmanides. Presumably with Ran then Halevi to Hasdai and Abarbanel. Gersonides and his eternal matter and restricted providence would precede Maimonides. Yet still mystical in the plain sense of the word even if he was engulfed in the spiritual adventurism.

Abulafia, Isaac the Blind and the esoteric tradition were on the mystical side of Provence. Maharal echoed in lesser mystical terms but was still open to the more experiential aspects. Arizal and his crew along with Ramak and Vital programmed the mystical metaphysic. Their engagement in Kabbalah was of the utmost mystical. Hasidism in different regards some more poignant like Ishbitz denied free will others like the Maggid wrote about angelology. The venture of esoteric excitement is much farther down the road than Maimonides. The deep engagement with the celestial and erosion of logic is a more mystical focus. Maimonides was lambasted for his metaphorical misreaingds of the biblical text. Hasdai accepted them literally with logic and rationality. It was Maimonides that had to modify them for his worldview. Accepting the literal plausibility places someone in the middle but the more metaphorical to naturalise and the more metaphorical to mystify puts one at the ends of the spectrum. 

The totality of the spectrum can be best noted by the current age. Kaplan would plot on the extreme of the most basis of naturalism. God and spirituality are the smallest of concessions to mysticism. Even those who accept a metaphorical revelation and naturalise most of the biblical style find some part to maintain some spirituality. Leibowitz would be a little over from Kaplan as his naturalism is more a refutation of history but seemingly would accept the revelation and prophecy. Then comes Berkovits and the Rav. Both were literal believers and accepted some religious notions. Then to Heschel who opined by religious experience but somewhat naturalistically. Finding awe and wonder to aid the experience to Rav Kook and the kabbalistic ideals. Building a metaphysic is the exact opposite of Leibowitz’s refutation. There are those who care little for the supernatural and readily admit to God but for all else is merely opinion or irrelevance. While for others religious experience is the most important. 

It is this regard that challenges the model of perception. Is one more of a simple believer either fervently sticking to science or ignorance? Does one personify religious experience finding it to be a conduit to God? Finally, is the supernal sphere an enjoyable pondering album? Every Jew accepts some of form of mysticism whether in the form of a deity or spirituality. It is this mysticism that can steadily increase or decrease depending on the individual’s perspective. Depending on one’s model of divine action. Interventionism is more mystical while transcendence is the opposite behaviour. The same goes for free will and religious incarnation. How much one devotes to an outlook will embody their spirit. Maimonides was undoubtably more invested in the logical sphere while Nahmanides more in the spiritual sphere. Rebbe Nachman argued that God could make a three sided cube. Maimonides would dissent. The mystical word is the imagination of impossibility while the rationalist deals with implausibility. Irrational times but logical. 

The effort by many to adopt Maimonides as their own is futile. Suggesting one is mystical is an anachronism baked into the feature of religion. Each person approaches mysticism differently. Some are more reserved by its impact others embrace it and extend on it.