Exile and Otherness. Ilana Maymind
of reward (attaining it) and punishment (being deprived of it) can be better understood through recourse to his view of resurrection. We briefly note here that for Shinran, the understanding of reward and punishment is inseparable from his conceptualization of “sin,” or what he terms “human evilness” or “wrongdoings.”142 These notions, as connected to karmic cause and effect, represent “the matrix out of which wrongdoings arise and within which they are negotiated.”143 To develop his conceptualization of wrongdoings and then to radically transform it to articulate his idea of akunin shōki,144 Shinran borrows from three Buddhist expressions: the ten evil acts (juāku), the five grave offenses (goguaku), and the denigration of the Dharma (hōbo or hihō shōbo).145 However, he argues that the Buddha appeared and remained in the world precisely because of his compassionate aim to help those who cannot help themselves because of their karmic nature that led them to commit these acts. It is from this conception that the idea of the akunin shōki originated that we are contrasting here with Maimonides’ notion of reward and punishment. Maimonides devotes considerable attention to this question in his three works: Pereq Heleq Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance, and Treatise on Resurrection.146
Maimonides differentiates among the concepts of the world to come (ha-olam ha-ba), the Garden of Eden (gan eden), the days of the Messiah, and the resurrection of the dead and “demythologizes” these terms.147 By maintaining no ontological distinction between this world and the world-to-come (ha-olam ha-ba), he refers to the Talmudic statement that “There is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah, except for (the elimination of) subjugation to the (wicked) kingdoms.”148 The world-to-come hence is ruled by the principles of justice. His vision of the world-to-come is dressed in terms of moral and virtuous sophistication which is inseparable from his position on Law: “The entire Law of Moses will be obeyed, without weariness, worry, or oppression.”149
In the Laws of Kings,150 Maimonides stipulates that the Messiah will not perform miracles or resurrect the dead: “Do not suppose that the messianic king needs to give signs, perform miracles, and make new things happen in the world, or resurrect the dead and do similar things.”151 The world-to-come is presented as the world of knowledge and high tolerance in which one will “pursue the virtues and avoid the vices” to be “distinguished from the beasts.”152 Maimonides reluctantly admits that humans always seek to be rewarded or fear to be punished. Therefore, he admits that “in order that the masses stay faithful and do the commandments, it was permitted to tell them that they might hope for a reward and warn them against transgressions out of fear of punishment.”153 For Maimonides, to obey the commandments out of fear of punishment and hope for reward is acceptable since following the commandments “strengthens and habituates” the masses’ loyalty to what the Torah requires.154
In the Laws of Repentance, he posits that “the life of the world-to-come is the reward for performing the commandments” since God “will remove from us everything preventing us from following [the Torah]—such as sickness, war, hunger, and so forth.”155 The educational aspect of studying the Torah and practical exhibition of following the commandments are producing a twofold outcome: first, God blesses one with good things and keeps away the curses; and second, as one becomes wise, he attains the merit for the world-to-come. Maimonides states: “[God] will benefit you with a world that is totally good and lengthen your days in a world whose length does not end.”156 Nonetheless, it is intellectual perfection that leads to one’s eternal existence and Maimonides states: “When a man achieves perfection, he is in the class of the man who is not hampered by any obstacle that would prevent his soul from remaining permanently with its knowledge.”157 In Maimonides’ terms, punishment is also portrayed in intellectual terms. While he does not appear to be interested in eternal punishment, he nonetheless implicitly excludes from eternal existence those who do not attain knowledge and do not actualize their intelligence. Being excluded from eternal existence can be likened to eternal punishment. Consistent with his negative perception of matter, Maimonides views matter as corruptible and subject to disappearance. Theological difficulty relates to his treatment of those who did not attain perfection making their treatment dangerously close to the treatment of the wicked and evil.
Contrary to Shinran who is in line with Buddhist notion of non-dualism, Maimonides regards matter as an impediment that inherently prevents the attainment of perfection. For instance, in GP III: 9, he states:
Matter is a strong veil preventing the apprehension of that which is separate from matter as it truly is. . . . Hence whenever our intellect aspires to apprehend the deity or one of the intellects, there subsists this great veil interposed between the two . . . we are separated by a veil from God.158
The corporeal nature is strongly articulated in GP III: 8 through 12: “all passing-away and corruption or deficiency are due solely to matter.”159 His negative view of matter informs his view of sin. Maimonides is explicit about the connection between matter and sin: “every living being dies and becomes ill solely because of its matter and not because of its form. All man’s acts of disobedience and sins are consequent upon his matter and not upon his form, whereas all his virtues are consequent upon his form.”160
Given his skepticism related to human nature, Maimonides fears that without following the commandments, humans can become perpetually swept by their evil inclinations. In GP III: 27, Maimonides states that the Mosaic Law (commandments) in its entirety brings the Jewish people both perfection of the soul and perfections of the body which will result in the world’s “perpetual preservation.”161 Perpetual preservation, however, is reserved only for this world and human “corporeal preservation” will last only “for a certain duration.” Maimonides complicates the idea of “eternal existence” by imbuing it with political significance. In GP III: 51, he argues that human preservation results from human welfare in terms of political association. Human happiness (or their state of felicity) depends on the soul’s perfection and is independent of “the genus of bodily pleasures.”162 Yet, in some instances, despite the bodily deterioration, an old age can ensure intellectual perfection and Maimonides states: “The result is that when a perfect man is stricken with years and approaches death, this apprehension [of intelligibles] increases very powerfully.”163 Ostensibly, Maimonides continues to view human perfection in terms of a non-corporeal, intellectual pleasure. Yet, given Maimonides’ view of human limitations, scholars still debate whether Maimonides did truly believe in the possibility of human perfection in terms of attainment of metaphysical knowledge.164
Throughout these discussions, we note the tension between solitude and politico-religious involvement, whereupon Maimonides feels a strong pull to be actively involved in the affairs of his community despite longing for solitary contemplations. The same tension is observed in Maimonides’ Eight Chapters in chapter 5 when he presents solitude and contemplation as most conducive to the ultimate goal of knowledge of God: “If a man sets this notion (i.e., knowledge of God) as his goal, he will discontinue many of his actions and generally diminish his conversations.” Trying to navigate between involvement and abstaining from it, he positions the middle way (the doctrine of the mean) as most natural to humans. In his words, “it is necessary to aim at the mean in actions and not depart from it toward one of the two extremes.”165
How to deal with human tendency for any harmful behavior and the propensity for exercising the extremes? For Maimonides, the doctrine of the mean is a corrective for any excessive approaches. It serves to balance the Jewish view of morality, which favors extreme piety, with the Greek approach of moderation, and hence, once again, links the Jewish tradition with Greek philosophy. Precisely because of his aim to unite these two traditions, Maimonides defines a pious man (hasid) as a virtuous man. While, in general, the pious man in the Jewish tradition is conceived of as someone who goes beyond what is required by the commandments, here Maimonides defines a pious man in terms of moderation and argues that he “weigh[s] all his actions with a view to this mean.”166 The principle of moderation ensures balance: “when the body gets out of equilibrium, we look to which side it inclines in becoming unbalanced, and then oppose it with its contrary until