that Maimonides circumvents the tension between theoretical and practical perfection by stating that bodily actions do not always necessitate the lack of intellectual focus. He suggests that the commandments enhance intellectual focus.220
Perhaps imitatio Dei, in fact, harmoniously integrates intellectual perfection and practical activities.221 This interpretation requires reading between the lines and some222 contend that the last chapter of the Guide, III: 54 is a true representation of Maimonides’ position that refutes the view that Maimonides interprets human perfection in terms of a life of contemplation as a means to apprehend God. These scholars maintain that Maimonides’ assertion that knowledge of God comes through one’s knowledge of God’s deeds represents his true conviction. However, this position might be overlooking the fact that for Maimonides, the apprehension of God can take place “in a measure corresponding to [human] capacity.”223 This caveat returns us to the question as to who is capable of attaining this apprehension, but also to the conditions in which this apprehension can occur. We should also keep in mind that this capability should be coupled with one’s inclination. Nonetheless, one is to be both inclined yet also capable of emulating God’s actions.224
The noted tension between the solitary and politico-religious concerns can also be seen in the concluding chapters of GP wherein Maimonides addresses the commandments in a slightly different vein as well. Whereas in III: 25–49 focus on the observance of the commandments pertains to the multitude, in GP III: 51, to the contrary, emphasis is on the exceptional individuals. Recalling the famous Parable of the Palace discussed in III: 51, Maimonides stipulates that only the ones who engage in intellectual speculations really enter the “antechambers”—attain apprehension of the intelligibles and, hence, enter the “inner court.” This is the only group that achieves human perfection. Here again perfection appears metaphysical as attaining this perfection cancels the need for any material sustenance and one assumes immortality: “For his intellect attained such strength that all gross faculties in the body ceased to function.”225 We note that ultimate perfection to attain immortality is not necessarily in line with the intention to maintain perfect political society.
Let us look once more at the central tension discussed throughout this chapter, namely, the tension between the life of contemplation (solitary pursuits) and the politico-religious involvement. We argue that this tension is present, to some degree, in both Shinran’s and Maimonides’ thought and is exacerbated by their respective politico-religious conditions. Maimonides’ view of statesmanship and politics can be termed a “modified intellectualism.”226 Perhaps Maimonides’ approach demonstrates less tension than we have been arguing thus far? This is precisely what Leo Strauss is claiming.227 His argument is built on the premise that Maimonides is much more a Platonic than an Aristotelian thinker and thus endorses the Platonic “philosopher-king.” If this is the case, then according to Leo Strauss, Maimonides experiences less of a tension and a modified intellectualism leaves room for integrating the solitary pursuits and the politico-religious approaches.228 Notwithstanding, we suggest that Maimonides’ willingness to compromise to preserve the tradition was a more prominent feature than this model suggests.
Given his affinity for the solitary pursuits, I am asking the question: How did being in exile affect the tension between solitary pursuit and politico-religious engagement that Maimonides experienced? Ostensibly, many of Maimonides’ writings exhibit a clear tension between the ethical character traits needed for the individual’s own perfection and the traits germane to the well-functioned social environment. We argue that a similar tension illuminates some of the struggles experienced by Shinran when he declares himself as not having any followers and yet is writing letters to his students to elucidate his own position.229 If his thought was only devoted to self-perfection or, more accurately to say, enlightenment, he would not have been concerned about explaining his thought. While we cannot say that Shinran had a similar politico-religious engagement, we suggest that the tension between solitary pursuits and a more communal involvement also had been exacerbated by his exile. Maimonides’ thought is colored by the tension between the need to focus on political considerations and the desire for the solitary pursuits. The focus on political considerations is predicated upon being in exile and on the need to preserve community’s religious and cultural identity. In GP III: 42, Maimonides implicitly addresses exile when he notes the need “not begrudge his heir and squander his property.”230 He then states that “man ought to take care of his relative and grant very strong preference to the bond of the womb.” But then rather significantly he adds, “Similarly everyone of whom you have had need some day, everyone who was useful to you and whom you found in a time of stress, even if afterwards he treated you ill, ought necessarily to have merit attaching to him because of the past.”231
Maimonides’ Genres in Writing and His Intended Audience
We already mentioned the centrality of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed. The Guide carries perhaps the same immense significance as does Shinran’s Kyōgyōshinshō. We posit here that Shinran’s and Maimonides’ goals carry a similar undertone: in the former, to preserve the democratized way of Shin Buddhism; and, in the latter, similar to the intentions of the Talmudic scholars, leave a trace or maybe even a specific outline for the generations to come. However, we might need to consider a possibility that Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed might have intended a different audience than his other writings. We should also accept a speculative proposition that Maimonides might be arguing different things to these different audiences. In addition, we need to accept a likehood of Maimonides addressing different target audiences even within the same text. In the Guide, Maimonides uses carefully crafted arguments that can be understood according to “a pyramid-shaped model of human intellect. Ultimate meaning lies within the exclusive domain of the superior intellect.”232 The Guide might not be a “guide” in its traditional sense, but rather a product of an ongoing attempt to rethink and rearticulate certain issues. It represents Maimonides’ effort to implicitly engage with the thinkers who influenced his thought and in such way, the Guide is a response to the dilemmas which arose from a comparison between Jewish views and Islamic (Aristotelian) philosophy.
We previously suggested that Shinran’s writings also addressed different audiences and yet we argued that perhaps the intention was broader and encompassed all audiences at once. Here we are making a similar argument. We recognize that the Mishneh Torah as a religious text stands alongside the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, and that the Guide for Perplexed is Maimonides’ philosophical magnum opus. We point out, however, these works’ interrelatedness and intertextuality “the Mishneh Torah’s prescriptive enterprise demands location in the philosophical discourse of the Guide, while the Guide’s discourse demands rootedness in the prescription of the Mishneh Torah.”233 Does it mean that Maimonides’ intended audience is the same for all of his texts or did he, like Shinran, aim his works for different audiences? Maimonides’ audience is, without saying, Jewish as Maimonides’ goal was to preserve the Jewish culture by preserving its canon and aiming it to be followed. However, his writing, in a somewhat similar vein as Shinran’s given that Shinran was exiled for following his mentor Hōnen’s teachings, was colored by “the anxiety of writing for a private audience, all the while conscious of its inevitable appearance in the public forum.”234 Notwithstanding the anxiety, the need was great and in the Introduction to the Guide, Maimonides writes: “I have never ceased to be exceedingly apprehensive about setting down those things that I wish to set down in this Treatise. For they are concealed things; none of them has been set down in any book—written in the [Jewish] religious community in these times in Exile.”235 So who was Maimonides’ intended audience? Was his audience for the Guide for Perplexed philosophers like in the case of Kyōgyōshinshō? According to Leo Strauss, the GP is “not a philosophical book—a book written by a philosopher for philosophers—but a Jewish book: a book written by a Jew for Jews.”236 So perhaps, like Shinran who claimed to write for everyone, Maimonides’ goal was also much broader?
While we admit that Maimonides can be seen as an elitist, Shinran is known for his
