Flavors of Ecstasy: States of Absorption in Islamic and Jewish Contemplative Traditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

On the whole, this is an excellent paper respectfully addressing both similarities and differences in this corpus, and filling a much-needed gap in scholarship of these states.

I am not qualified to evaluate the discussion of Sufism and will not comment on it here.

On the discussion of Kabbalah and Hasidism, the paper would benefit from more engagement with critical analyses of the categories of "mysticism" and mystical experience - e.g. Boaz Huss and Jonathan Garb.  There is a bit too much reliance on Wolfson - Idel has written much more recent scholarship than is cited here.  Though care has been used to not import too much from the study of Buddhism (Hinduism is barely mentioned here, though its absorption states are closer to Jewish ones), still some of the categories and the reliance on Lindahl's work are occasionally problematic.  Engagement with the large field of scholarship of Jewish mysticism and experience would improve the paper.

The redefinition of kavvanah is provocative, but the paper should note that it is running against most of the consensus on the meaning of this term, and the majority of the ways in which it is used in the literature.  More broadly, the paper is obviously relying primarily on translations and is thus of only limited value for understanding this body of textual literature.  

While the discussion of nonduality and world-negation or world-affirmation (lines 981-1085) is interesting, it does not seem relevant to the core of the paper, and is not sufficiently detailed, either in the Jewish material it covers (omitting both contemporary and historical figures) or in comparison with other systems.  The paper seems unaware of longstanding discussions of quietism, asceticism, acosmism and related issues in scholarship (e.g., Shatz-Uffenheimer, Elior, Michaelson, Green, Jacobs, Idel) and relies on a few sources to make broad points.  Given the paper's broad reach, it would be better without this section, staying purely with the phenomenological descriptions of absorptive states.  

Similarly, section 4.4 takes the paper too far afield from its phenomenological roots and into scientific research which is not fully developed, and which again relies too much on a few very narrow Theravadan Buddhist / Western mindfulness sources.  These sources are quite peripheral, at best, to the theistic traditions discussed in the bulk of the paper.  If the writer wishes to analogize between different traditions, it would be better to stay with the phenomenological comparisons between the relevant Jewish and Islamic states and others in other traditions.  The paper would be stronger without this brief discussion of scientific studies that are not about the primary subject of the paper.

Overall, the paper initiates an important line of inquiry into the phenomenology of absorption states in Jewish and Islamic sources. It is limited by its reliance on translations and on a relatively small number of scholarly sources.   Still, with some additions and subtractions to better focus on the subject at hand, it has the potential to better include these traditions within contemplative studies and to lay the groundwork for more in-depth treatment of the primary sources.

 

Author Response

On the discussion of Kabbalah and Hasidism, the paper would benefit from more engagement with critical analyses of the categories of "mysticism" and mystical experience - e.g. Boaz Huss and Jonathan Garb.  There is a bit too much reliance on Wolfson - Idel has written much more recent scholarship than is cited here.  Though care has been used to not import too much from the study of Buddhism (Hinduism is barely mentioned here, though its absorption states are closer to Jewish ones), still some of the categories and the reliance on Lindahl's work are occasionally problematic.  Engagement with the large field of scholarship of Jewish mysticism and experience would improve the paper.

Response: References and engagement with Huss (note v), Garb (lines 1228-1232; notes i, v, xiv, xv, xvii) and Idel (lines 600-605, 730-752, 792, 812, 821-839, 1015; notes xv, xvi, xvii) have been added. Reference to work from Lindahl was deleted (line 1428) and qualified (lines 1361-1364)

The redefinition of kavvanah is provocative, but the paper should note that it is running against most of the consensus on the meaning of this term, and the majority of the ways in which it is used in the literature.  More broadly, the paper is obviously relying primarily on translations and is thus of only limited value for understanding this body of textual literature.  

Section on kavvanah has been adapted and extended to address concerns of both reviewers (lines 516-696; note xi)

While the discussion of nonduality and world-negation or world-affirmation (lines 981-1085) is interesting, it does not seem relevant to the core of the paper, and is not sufficiently detailed, either in the Jewish material it covers (omitting both contemporary and historical figures) or in comparison with other systems.  The paper seems unaware of longstanding discussions of quietism, asceticism, acosmism and related issues in scholarship (e.g., Shatz-Uffenheimer, Elior, Michaelson, Green, Jacobs, Idel) and relies on a few sources to make broad points.  Given the paper's broad reach, it would be better without this section, staying purely with the phenomenological descriptions of absorptive states.  

Section removed

Similarly, section 4.4 takes the paper too far afield from its phenomenological roots and into scientific research which is not fully developed, and which again relies too much on a few very narrow Theravadan Buddhist / Western mindfulness sources.  These sources are quite peripheral, at best, to the theistic traditions discussed in the bulk of the paper.  If the writer wishes to analogize between different traditions, it would be better to stay with the phenomenological comparisons between the relevant Jewish and Islamic states and others in other traditions.  The paper would be stronger without this brief discussion of scientific studies that are not about the primary subject of the paper.

Section has been adapted to address reviewers concerns. Given the interdisciplinary emphasis of the paper, and that it began with a survey of clinical and cognitive science definitions of absorption to construct the lens of the study, I believe it is warranted to end with these specific scientific sources qualified by the fact that they are explicitly only being used to identify future directions of scientific inquiry and potential scientific import. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very well written and definitely merits publishing. It examines an important point within the field (the question of absorption in Islamic and Jewish mysticism) and does it well, bringing many important insights to the reader.

There are, however, some points were improvement is necessary.

Lines 59-94: The category of “trance” is used, but not defined, nor is the reader referred to studies that do so. It is also questionable if absorption is indeed a part of most trance states, which may be very common and almost daily occurrences. I suggest looking into the work on trance states in

Jonathan Garb’s Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah and Ann Taves’ Religious Experience Reconsidered.

 

Lines 230-233, 478-487: here states of baqa are discussed, meaning a consciousness of the divine that continues in everyday life. The author writes about this splendidly, but does not explain how do these stated constitute absorption. It’s clear why fana entails the absorption of the mystics consciousness in concentration/recollection etc. but baqa is being aware of the mundane world (as supra-mundane, no doubt). How is this absorption?

 

The treatment of Jewish sources is problematic.

Lines 501-511 have Wolfson’s interpretation of a Talmudic tale about a person praying while a snake is on their foot. Is this absorption? Or simply a test of one’s determination? Wolfson has it as absorption, and he certainly is a big enough authority to hang a thesis on. But it bears to think there might be a much simpler explanation.

 

Lines 513-518: this Talmudic tale usually is interpreted as sages being bored in prayer, not absorbed. Again, a simple explanation being replaced by a harder one. Really, there is no real evidence that Talmudic sages were into mystical prayer at all.

 

Lines 536-557: Again, stretching it. Does the Zohar have a meditative path leading to or beginning with absorption? I can’t find one, nor do, I think, most Zohar scholars. The closest to talking about mystical paths in the Zohar is Melila Hellner Eshed’s A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, and even there it’s communal mysticism, and not really absorption.

 

Lines 558 and on:

The treatment of Abulafia is lacking. His mystical path is much more multileveled and sophisticated than is presented. Also lacking are references to Moshe Idel’s studies, which are the definitive studies of Abulafia.

 

Lines 621 to 645:

Abraham Maimonides was thoroughly and deeply influenced by Sufism. This has to be mentioned. I also clearly explains the similarities between his system and Sufi paths.

 

Lines 638-645 and 668-673:

The author writes about absorption and how according to Fishbane “The goal of Khalwah was to deaden the body to all worldly stimuli” etc., but than (rightly) points about that the goal of Hitbodedut was “the attainment of the holy spirit and even prophecy”. Now indeed, for Abulafia, that highest goal was prophecy, which entailed engaging with a figure, an apparition, and not losing all sense datum. How do these relate to one another? It would be beneficial if the author engaged with these differences and explain them to the reader. Are they both “absorption”?

 

Line 807 – typo

 

Line 833: the Sefira of crown is “after Hokhmah”, but isn’t it before Hokhmah? I think so.

 

Lines 861-884: R. Morgenstern’s quote – does he describe absorption? How so? There is a recurring tendency in the article to throw too many mystical paths and experiences into the absorption basket. The author needs to explain how this fits into their model.

 

Line 893: Absorption is cultivated “using sensory deprivation and sensory withdrawal” – but not all the paths and experiences brought in the paper use these…

 

Line 938-939: Absorption is “the doorway into all kinds of higher states of consciousness”. No. No. It’s just not. What about mindfulness? What about ecstatic, emotional prayer? What about dancing to the rhythm of drums around a fire? What about fasting? Guided imagination? Dreaming? Self-flagellation? Psychoactive plants? You just can’t reduce all of the worlds mystical and spiritual paths into one simple step or experience or system or method. See, for example, Tomer Persico’s article in this issue which was already published.

 

Line 982-3: “While perhaps all Abrahamic contemplative paths conceive of the goal as some kind of union or communion with God or the divine” – Well, Abulafia want’s prophecy. And the Kabbalists want to unite the Sefirot, and Teresa of Avila wanted visions of The Virgin. So unless the word “communion” here is very wide, please qualify.

 

Page 19: there is a footnote at the bottom of the page for some reason.

 

Lines 1068-1072:

“We might say that while different traditions aren’t 1068 merely different paths up the same mountain, the withdrawal of the senses leading to-1069 wards perceptual decoupling and states of absorption may be a kind of shared base camp 1070 from which different traditions and sub-traditions go on to ascend”

No. No. See above.

 

Line 1083: “”Buddhist traditions from which the western Vipassana movement has drawn” – So… Another “base camp”, wouldn’t you say?

 

All in all, after the proper corrections, a worthy article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf