Redemption via Oneness
The only difference between Exile and Redemption is the realization of Oneness.
Originally published as part of “Atzmuss and the Status of the Torah in the Messianic Era: On a New Torah.” (2000)
Redemption by the mystical One
‘Spinoza held a dual attributed theory also called the dual-aspect theory—according to which the mental and physical are distinct modes of a single substance/space, God. The mental and physical are only two of infinitely many modes of this one substance. Some philosophers, however, opt for a thoroughgoing monism, according to which all of reality is really of one kind.’ – Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy edited by Robert Audi, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
The character of redemption, in contrast to exile, is that of Oneness and Unity, as in the verse; ‘On that day [meaning the Messianic Era] the Lord will be One and His Name will be One.’ Herein lies the theological distinction between the old and new Torah, where this eschatological Oneness undermines the very dualism that constitutes the relationship between God and the Jewish people as expressed through the normative Torah and its commandments.
Although many of the quotes below that talk of the unique quality of Oneness that permeates the era of redemption are spoken of in the future tense, to some extent they are also to be anticipated in the present, and it is this anticipation that sows the seeds for a possible form of mystical antinomianism. In the next example, the Rebbe explains how there is no fundamental difference between this world and the next except in the awareness of ‘The One.’ Exile becomes and is transformed into redemption by the realisation of the mystical One.
‘When Moshiach comes, exile (golah) will be transformed into redemption (geulah) by the insertion of the letter Alef. [Shabbat Parashat Emor 5751]’
This realisation whether anticipated by the individual in the present era or realised collectively by mankind in the future redemption, is induced by the teachings of the Messiah and the revelation of Atzmuss (God’s Essence), in and through the New Torah. As the Rebbe believed that he was the Messiah, it was his belief therefore, that aspects of the New Torah (the teachings of the Messiah) were already available in Hassidic philosophy in general and particularly in his own teachings, especially in those that deal with issues pertaining to redemption.
In confronting and inviting the eschatological unity of the redemption into the here and now of an apparent exile many elements that we would normally associate with exile become altered and transfigured into magically divine and redemptive motifs. The Rebbe develops the idea further by connecting the revelation of ‘Alef’ with both God’s Essence/Atzmuss and the divinity of the ego, incorporating and transforming both the world and the ego, arguably the very cause of exile, into the ultimate revelation of God’s Essence, and therefore also transforming the individual in his everyday existence into an innately divine being.
‘…In the revelation of Divinity [that will take place] in the true and complete redemption; in addition to there being the revelation of the [primary] cause (God), in the effect (the world), and the revelation of Divinity that transcends creation; which is the revelation of His Blessed Essence (Atzmuss) below [i.e. in the world]. … There will be the revelation of the Essential power/potential (koach ha-Atzmuss) specifically in, the created self [the ego].’[Shabbat Parshat Emor 5751. p.525 beginning of the second column in Sefer Ha Sichot 5751.]
The discussion of the divinity of the ego will be dealt with in the chapter titled ‘Atzmuss and the individual’. However, for our current purposes we need to first understand the character of the redemptive Oneness as a prelude both to understanding ‘Atzmuss’ and the innately divine nature of the ego in the messianic era. Closely connected to this theme of the divinity of the world and the individual, is the plight of the ‘multiple,’ and by understanding its fate we may be given some clue as to the character of the relationship between the individual and God’s Essence or Atzmuss. The next quote deals with the Rebbe’s attempt to reconcile the multiple and diverse aspects of the world with his messianic and monistic philosophy. He explains paradoxically that it is precisely within the recognition of the ‘multiple’ that the Oneness and unity of God/Atzmuss must be seen and experienced.
The ‘multiple’ must first be acknowledged before it is incorporated into the whole. This therefore expresses the unique strength and power of the Oneness (Atzmuss) that is able to recognise the multiple but its Oneness is not only not affected by it, but is strengthened by it.
‘…The advantage of the Oneness which transcends differentiation…[but also at the same time recognises it and] includes and unifies it like one thing literally… reveals the true idea of Oneness, that is, that the multiple does not conceal its unity.’ [Sefer Maamarim Meluket 5, p.59. Koontrass 20th Mar’Cheshvan, 5751 1991 (originally 5745 1985).]
This discussion of the quality of Oneness and unity that is available in the mystical experience even in exile compared to the Messianic era has traditionally been explained as the difference between ‘One’ and ‘Only.’ Although as we will shortly discover this is not as clear as it sounds, as the Rebbe adds his own paradoxical innovation to the equation and turns the whole thing on its head, but for now a brief explanation of the traditional Hassidic view point as it stands will suffice before we graduate to the Rebbe’s ideas on the subject.
‘One’ semantically represents the One God, the mystical One and Monism. However, in its detailed examination of the term ‘One,’ Hassidic philosophy finds that this term lacks a certain resilience and is not as watertight as the formulators of Hassidic thought would like. In their attempt to describe a higher and more consummate Oneness that they feel is the particular nature of the unio-mystica and also of Redemption. Moreover, as the idea of the ‘One God’ is the basis for ‘Monotheism,’ it is understandably a term, that although from a mystical perspective is interpreted as being beyond division, the mystical tradition feels that the idea has been misused and/or misunderstood as a description of the ‘One God of the world’ as opposed to the Monistic and mystical realisation of the Oneness of all Existence. Therefore, the term ‘Only’ is generally used in an attempt to describe the type of Oneness that expresses the mystical reality of there ‘Only’ being God.
In the next brief quotation, the Rebbe attempts to explain that even retrospectively Judaism, from its very conception, was not a dualistic religion or theology but rather a monistic one. This will help us to understand the mystical and monistic interpretation of ‘the One God,’ in contrast to the normative, monotheistic understanding, as well as helping us to see the Rebbe as a mystic struggling with tradition as he attempts to express what he sees as a more authentic form of Judaism. This interpretation helps to reinforce the legitimacy of the Rebbe’s mystical, messianic and monistic theology, as well as laying the foundations for a return to a more monistic form of Judaism in the present as well as in the soon to be messianic era.
“…as it is written ‘and he (Abraham) called there, in the name of God, El-Olam…’[Genesis Vayeira-21:33.] specifically…[God-World] El-Olam, and not El-ha-Olam [God of the World]; this means to imply, that neither God or the world are independent entities, nor that God rules over the world, but [rather that] the world and God are all One, and that ‘there is nothing else!’”[12th Tamuz 5737/1976 - Sefer Maamarim Meluket 1, p.187.]
Continuing with this traditionally mystical interpretation of ‘One’ and ‘Only’ the following quote is based on the idea that ‘One,’ although being of a singular nature, is nevertheless still the first of the many other numbers that follows it. Therefore, the term ‘One’ is the potential source for the ‘many’ and is consequently an unsuitable term if used to describe a Oneness that in essence transcends any association with multiplicity, whereas ‘Only’ as a theological term here affirms that there is ‘Only’ God, which implies a unity that transcends the multiple and therefore also the world.
‘… The idea of “God [is] One,” the explanation of “One” here is [really] “Only,” and this that we [actually] say “One” and not “Only” is alluding to… the Tetragrammaton and Elohim…[being] One…’[Sefer Maamarim Meluket 2 pp.60-62. Koontrass 12th-13th of Tamuz 5747 1987.]
—meaning that the term ‘One’ implies the union of two, the two names of God: in dealing with these two divine names, as separate entities, we unite them when we say ‘They [plural] are One.’ However, as concepts these two names of God describe the union of singularity and multiplicity (as the linguistic form of the names implies, the Tetragrammaton is singular and Elohim plural). The intention then would be that these seemingly two distinct realms are not just joined together as one, but that in the union of these two is meant a Oneness that absolutely transcends both of these categories, and expresses the reality that there is nothing but God, that is, there is ‘Only’ God.
However even this term ‘Only’ as one of ‘ultimate transcendence’ in both the mystical experience and messianic era, falls into difficulties when coming into contact with the Rebbe’s understanding of both the nature of reality in the present and also in the era of redemption, as the following quote proves:
‘The true idea of the Oneness of God, is that this Oneness should also include the world. But, the reason that it is written “God is One,” is because that if it was written “God is Only,” the explanation would be that His Blessed unity was in the Ohr En Sof [infinite light] (and not in the world). Therefore, in order that the world would be able to feel this Blessed unity… it says “God is One” so that the seven heavens and the one earth, and the four directions of the world will be nullified to the One [Only] unity of the world… This appears in the revelation of the power of Atzmuss that includes and joins the idea of “One” and “Only.”’[Sefer Maamarim Meluket 2 pp.60-61. Koontrass 12th-13th of Tamuz 5747 1987.]
The conclusion is that although one may be saying ‘One’ one’s intention or ‘kavana’ is that of ‘Only’ and therefore in so doing one unites both of these terms in one act of saying one thing and thinking another. This approach of interpreting the present day actions or prayers as the ultimate revelation of Atzmuss mystically transforms these acts into an anticipation of the realisation of the messianic era in the present. But, nevertheless, despite there being an anticipation accessible in the present, the metaphors of the future and the era of redemption are still used to facilitate the belief that this realisation will be openly revealed and experienced by all only in the messianic era. The following quotation is an adaptation of an address of the Rebbe,[On Shabbat Parshat Mattos-Masei, 5751.] expresses this unique sense of oneness and unity that is a distinct character of the era of redemption.
