any gods of idolaters but also is quite contrary to Shinran’s Amida Buddha, particularly because of the absence of any relationality.
Maimonides connects one’s perception of God with one’s ethics. Idolatry in his view testifies to a lower level of human intellectual and hence ethical development. Maimonides’ insistence on God’s incorporeality attests to his understanding of human ethical development.135 According to Maimonides, God realized that the Israelites, embedded in the pagan environment, could not abandon idolatry instantaneously. As a result, some of the commandments (i.e., the sacrifice of the animals) served as the intermediary steps similar to the other anthropomorphic verses of the Torah. In other words, paganism is a preliminary stage in any developed ethical religious system. The first intention of the commandments, Maimonides states, was to put an end to idolatry and eradicate “unhealthy opinions” and “crazy notions.”136 The elimination of idolatry is the “first divine intention,” whereas the ethical improvement of the individuals and the just governance of society are the “second divine intention.” This second intention represents a qualitatively higher intention (see GP 3.27, 3.29, and 3.32). In order to attain intellectual perfection, humans first need to part with an archaic way of thought.
We juxtapose here Maimonides’ view on idolatry expressed in the GP with those in Laws of Idolatry chapter 2. Keeping in mind a possibility of a varied target audience, we recognize here that Maimonides appears more intensely anti-pagan in his legal works than in the Guide. In Laws of Idolatry Maimonides emphasizes controlling one’s thoughts.137 One’s mental state appears as important, if not even more important than one’s physical acts. The focus on the importance of the mental acts is stressed in the GP as well, specifically in III: 8 when Maimonides characterizes human evilness by expanding on the Talmudic expression that “thoughts about sin are worse than the sin.”138
Maimonides is concerned with internalization of incorrect views that could lead in turn to the improper beliefs. In GP I: 50, Maimonides states that “belief is not the notion that is uttered, but the notion that is represented in the soul when it has been averred of it that it is in fact just as it has been represented.”139 A relationship between a belief and an action is demonstrated in one’s actions. The foundation for correct actions lies in the idea of habituation.140 In Pereq Heleq (Sanhedrin, chapter 10), Maimonides addresses human propensity for subscribing to the wrong opinions. In the introduction to Pereq Heleq, he articulates his view of the hierarchy of human ability to interpret complex ideas. He identified three types of interpretations of the words of the sages and three groups of people and reaffirms his conviction in the superiority of intellectual comprehension. The third group is the smallest elite group and is characterized by their predisposition for rational thought. Maimonides favors this group for their ability to recognize hidden wisdom and concealed meaning. Maimonides states: “if you belong to the third group, when you encounter a word of the sages which seems to conflict with reason, you will pause, consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable.”141
While humans have a free will to choose, Maimonides is concerned that human intellectual limitations can lead them to perceive reward and punishment in rather concrete terms and to make the wrong choices. Not following the commandments is connected to the fear of punishment. Yet Maimonides remains consistent in his endorsement of human free will because humans can choose not to abide by these principles while being aware of the consequences.
Maimonides’ Views of Resurrection
Maimonides’ understanding 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
