The Jewish commandment which prohibits images of God is the obverse of the statement that relating to one's neighbor is the only terrain of religious practice, of where the divine dimension is present in our lives — "no images of God" does not point towards a gnostic experience of the divine beyond our reality, a divine which is beyond any image; on the contrary, it designates a kind of ethical hic Rhodus, hic salta: you want to be religious? OK, prove it here, in the "works of love," in the way you relate to your neighbors... Levinas was therefore right to emphasize how "nothing is more opposed to a relation with the face than ‘contact' with the Irrational and mystery."* Judaism is anti-gnosticism par excellence. We have here a nice case of the Hegelian reversal of reflexive determination into determinate reflection: instead of saying "God is love," we should say "love is divine" (and, of course, the point is not to conceive of this reversal as the standard humanist platitude. It is for this precise reason that Christianity, far from standing for a regression towards an image of God, only draws the consequence of the Jewish iconoclasm through asserting the identity of God and man — or, as it is said in John 4:12: "No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us." The radical conclusion to be drawn from this is that one should renounce the very striving for one's own (spiritual) salvation as the highest form of egotism — according to Leon Brunschvicg, therein resides the most elementary ethical lesson of the West against the Eastern spirituality:{{BSZ}}
The preoccupation with [[Jewish]] commandment which prohibits [[images]] of God is the obverse of the [[statement]] that relating to one's [[neighbor]] is the only terrain of [[religious]] [[practice]], of where the divine [[dimension]] is [[present]] in our salvation is lives — "no images of God" does not point towards a remnant gnostic [[experience]] of self-lovethe divine beyond our [[reality]], a divine which is beyond any [[image]]; on the contrary, it designates a trace kind of natural egocentrism from which we must [[ethical]] hic Rhodus, hic salta: you [[want]] to be torn by religious? OK, prove it here, in the religious life. As long as you think only salvation"works of [[love]], " in the way you turn relate to your back on neighbors... [[Levinas]] was therefore [[right]] to emphasize how "[[nothing]] is more opposed to a relation with the face than ‘contact' with the [[Irrational]] and mystery."* [[Judaism]] is anti-gnosticism par excellence. We have here a nice [[case]] of the [[Hegelian]] [[reversal]] of reflexive determination into determinate [[reflection]]: instead of saying "Godis love," we should say "love is divine" (and, of course, the point is not to conceive of this reversal as the standard [[humanist]] platitude. God It is for this precise [[reason]] that [[Christianity]], far from standing for a [[regression]] towards an image of God, only for draws the consequence of the person who overcomes Jewish iconoclasm through asserting the temptation [[identity]] of God and man — or, as it is said in John 4:12: "No man has ever seen God; if we love one [[another]], God abides in us and his love is perfected in us." The radical conclusion to degrade Him and use Him be drawn from this is that one should [[renounce]] the very striving for his one's own ends. (DFspiritual) salvation as the highest [[form]] of egotism — according to Leon Brunschvicg, 48)therein resides the most elementary ethical lesson of the West against the Eastern spirituality:
So what about the Buddhist figure The preoccupation with our salvation is a remnant of bodhisattva who[[self]]-love, out a trace of love for [[natural]] egocentrism from which we must be torn by the non-yet-enlightened suffering humanityreligious [[life]]. As long as you [[think]] only salvation, postpones his own salvation to help others you turn your back on the way towards it? Does bodhisattva not stand God. God is God, only for the highest contradiction: is not person who overcomes the implication of temptation to degrade Him and use Him for his gesture that love is higher than salvation? So why still call salvation salvation?own ends. (DF, 48)
So what [[about]] the Buddhist [[figure]] of bodhisattva who, out of love for the non-yet-enlightened [[suffering]] humanity, postpones his own salvation to [[help]] [[others]] on the way towards it? Does bodhisattva not stand for the highest [[contradiction]]: is not the implication of his gesture that love is higher than salvation? So why still call salvation salvation?
[...]
[...]
1. Levinas, Emmanuel, Difficult [[Freedom]]: Essays on Judaism, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins [[University]] Press 1997, p. 9.
==Source==1* [[Jews, Christians and other Monsters]]. ''[[Lacanian]] Ink''. Volume 23. Spring 2004. Levinas, Emmanuel, Difficult Freedompp 82-99. <http: Essays on Judaism, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1997, p//www.lacan. 9com/frameXXIII5.htm>
http[[Category://www.lacan.com/frameXXIII5.htmArticles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Works]][[Category:Articles]]
