B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 75

Personality Change through

Contemplative Meditation:
An Integrative Hasidic and
Psychological Approach
Yaacov Lefcoe, MA (Psych)
Presented at the Fifth Miami International Conference on Torah and
Science, 16-18 December 2005
This paper outlines an approach to inte-
grating the Habad Hasidic practice and phi-
losophy of meditation with some contemporary
psychological thought on ‘object relations’
and personality development within the G-d
relationship. A bridging concept, the shiura or
internal ‘G-d representation,’ assists in draw-
ing a comparison of complementary models of
personality changes that can occur in a person’s
relationship with G-d, particularly as cultivated
through Jewish contemplative meditation (hit-
bonenut). We focus on the insights of contem-
porary psychological theorist Moshe Halevi
Spero. Some implications and ways of using
this complementarity are explored.
Yaacov Lefcoe spent his early years in London,
Ontario, Canada playing hockey and developing
interests in antinuclear activism, rock music (playing
bass for the Canadian band White Punks on Funk),
and Eastern mysticism. Upon graduating high school
in 1987, he left for a seven-month solo trek to Southeast
Asia and spent time learning vipassana meditation in
Thailand (Wot Suan Mok) and India. Towards the end
of this journey he entered the Ascent Institute in Tsfat
looking for a room for the night, met its director Rabbi
Shaul Leiter, and ended up spending five years in full-
time Torah study, primarily at the Yeshivat Od Yosef
Hai at the Tomb of Joseph in Shekhem with the hasidic
teacher Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh.
Today Yaacov is a psychologist in private practice
in Rosh Pina, Israel and a PhD candidate in clinical
psychology at York University in Toronto. His
interests include meditation and the interaction of
Judaism and psychology, in particular authoring
research on the psychology of tshuvah (return to
Torah Judaism) for which he won the Ivana Guglietti
Prize for Excellence in Qualitative Research at York
University. Yaacov also plays bass for the American-
Israeli rock trio YOOD.
yaacovle@gmail.com

Hasidic Psychology and the G-d Relationship

Habad Hasidism is an intellectual approach to Jewish mysticism that
uses in-depth contemplative meditation as a way to cultivate awareness
of, connection to, and ultimately yihud (bonding or union) with G-d. What
is particularly noteworthy for the psychologist, however, is how Habad
teachings do not simply teach meditation, nor just convey mystical teach-
ings as material for meditation. Rather, a detailed and sophisticated psy-
chology of meditation is found within the Habad corpus.
In laying the ground for its psychology of meditation, the Habad litera-
ture deals in depth with what I call ‘basic ideational processes.’1 These are
familiar to any student of Habad Hasidism. I am referring to such matters

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 75 08/01/2009, 23:51

 76 Personality Change through Contemplative Meditation

as how an object or idea is initially made the focus of the intelligent gaze
of the mind; how the mind then begins to ‘clothe’ or represent the idea
in language; how the mind begins to ‘own’ the idea, and adopt one or
another emotionally-valenced attitudes towards it; and so forth, all the
way through to emotions, and how the idea may be expressed in speech
or action.
The Habad writings are not engaged in psychology for its own sake.
Rather, an understanding is developed of processes of thought, emotion,
memory, internalization, and related topics, in order to apply these to the
central project, which is bonding with G-d through hitbonenut (contempla-
tive meditation).2 For example, we can develop a sense of what it means
to cultivate such a union with G-d by engaging in a discussion of how an
in-depth comprehension of an idea may bring about a ‘wondrous union’3
of the mind with the idea. Habad hitbonenut can be said to begin with the
placing of one’s attention onto G-d; thinking, for example, of how G-d is
bringing oneself and one’s surroundings into existence every moment.
Once G-d has become the ‘object’ of contemplation in this way, one begins
to develop an ‘understanding’ by which we mean, in this context, an in-
ner sense or representation of G-d and the creative processes initiated and
maintained by G-d.
Yet, this is just the barest beginning. The expansion, maturation, and
elaboration of this ‘understanding’ of G-d is the long-term project of
hitbonenut. A person’s meditatively-forged and developed sense of G-d
becomes the vehicle for an enhanced connection with G-d. As stated in
the Tanya (based on the Zohar) and afterwards often repeated in hasidic
writings:
G-d is revealed to each individual according to his measure (shiura)
[meaning:] each individual according to how he measures [or “estimates”]
G-d in his heart.”4
Based on this reference from the Zohar in the Tanya and throughout the
hasidic literature, I have adopted the term shiura—literally, the ‘measure’ or
‘estimation’ of G-d—to refer to the ‘G-d object representation’ that devel-
ops through hitbonenut meditation. The development of such a shiura is to
be understood as fundamental to the entire Habad meditative project.

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 76 08/01/2009, 23:51

 B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 77

Ecstatic displays of religious fervor that are not driven primarily by

such a cultivated shiura of G-d are viewed with skepticism bordering on
outright disdain in a key Habad meditative textbook, the Tract on Ecstasy,
by Rabbi Dov Ber of Lubavitch, the son of Rabbi Shneur Zalman, the first
Lubavitch Rebbe.5 Rabbi Dov Ber describes various types and levels of hit-
paalut (passion, ecstasy, or affect) that a person may experience in relation
with G-d. When the Tract on Ecstasy is read carefully with a psychological
sensibility, and in particular with the two commentaries by Rabbi Hillel
Paritcher6 in hand, it becomes clear that Rabbi Dov Ber deals in his text
with more than just hitpaalut. Each of the five stages of meditative experi-
ence of G-d that he describes consists of a complex array of motivational,
cognitive, affective, and behavioral qualities, integrated into a kind of
overall relational ‘posture’ characterizing that stage.
A linchpin concept in my proposed integration is that this type of
complex relational posture, with its array of motivational, cognitive, and
emotional elements as explicated in the Tract on Ecstasy and related texts,
is highly resonant with what is referred to in contemporary psychology
as an intrapsychic ‘object representation’7 or ‘self object.’8 From a hasidic
point of view, we could say that each of these stages consists of an entire
partsuf, which means a full ‘human form’ of related qualities. The forma-
tion and cultivation of this type of ‘object representation’ of G-d through
hitbonenut is what drives the general personality changes that are de-
scribed—and prescribed—by Rabbis Dov Ber Shneuri and Hillel ben Meir
of Paritch.
The concept of the shiura—as an inner ‘estimation’ of G-d, or ‘G-d
representation’—can provide a useful shorthand for referring to the mul-
tilayered, evolving experience of G-d that develops through long-term
hitbonenut.
Having come to this point, we can now introduce some contemporary
psychological thought that I suggest can be brought into fruitful dialogue
and integration with the Habad psychology of meditation.

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 77 08/01/2009, 23:51

 78 Personality Change through Contemplative Meditation

Psychology of the G-d Relationship

The terms ‘object representation’ and ‘self object’ mentioned in con-
nection with the shiura derive from the object relations and self psychol-
ogy schools of thought of later psychoanalysis. These schools of thought
are concerned with the internalized representations of self and others in
the psyche, especially the ways in which these representations become
constitutive of identity (the ‘self representation’). They are fundamental
to how we perceive and relate to our interpersonal world.
Recent application of the object relations theory in psychology to the
G-d relationship by Ana-Maria Rizutto9 and Moshe Halevi Spero have in-
spired some of the themes in my reading of hitbonenut described above.
In considering some of this psychological theorizing of religious experi-
ence, I shall focus on the work of clinical psychologist Spero, the most
prolific and synthesizing contributor to this body of literature.
Spero10 observes that just as in any other relationship, our experience
of G-d is colored by a complex of pre-understandings, desires, and expec-
tations derived from our early relations with significant others, as well
as our cultural and linguistic contexts. A similar observation informed
Freud’s psychologistic reduction of religion, which he interpreted as
merely a ‘projection’ of infantile needs and conflicts.
Dissatisfied with this reductionism, Spero argues that in order to do
good psychotherapy the therapist needs to keep an open mind about
clients’ relationships with G-d. Spero insists that the G-d relationship be
treated in therapy as consisting potentially of both projective and non-
projective ‘realistic’ elements. Through his case studies, he shows how
this approach allows the client (whether nominally religious or not) to
deal in depth with important personal issues that touch upon these mat-
ters. In adopting this stance, Spero takes pains to distance himself from
other approaches to spiritual material in psychotherapy that he says may
“…encourage interpretations that simply appear mystical or religiously
‘loaded’…”11
Spero presents a theoretical treatment of the G-d relationship, which
we can call the ‘duo-dimensional model.’ He conceptualizes two parallel

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 78 08/01/2009, 23:51

 B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 79

dimensions in the inner representation of G-d: the anthropocentric and

the deocentric. The anthropocentric dimension consists of the personal
and cultural factors we bring to our relationship with G-d. These fac-
tors coalesce into what Spero refers to as (small “g”) god-representations
(which are essentially the object relations equivalent of the projective de-
ity of Freud’s Totem and Taboo).12
Spero describes these anthropocentric ‘god representations’ as evolv-
ing through a series of six qualitative stages, which he derives from Mar-
garet Mahler, Fred Pine, and Anni Bergman’s13 ‘separation-individuation’
model of human development.14 Like other similar models based on the
work of Mahler, Pine, and Bergman, this model of religious change as-
sumes that the separation-individuation stages are recapitulated at de-
velopmental crisis points such as adolescence,15 adult love relationships,16
and other adult transitional experiences.17 Each of the Mahler group’s six
separation-individuation stages (namely: normal autism, symbiosis, dif-
ferentiation, practicing, rapprochement, and individuation or emotional
object constancy) is reinterpreted to describe the vicissitudes of the devel-
opment of one’s relationship to G-d.18
A noteworthy aspect of this model is that until the point of individua-
tion, all of these stages are fundamentally narcissistic in nature. That is to
say that in one’s relations with the other (in this case, G-d), one is not gen-
uinely focused on nor concerned with that other, but rather with working
out one’s own viability as a distinct person; forming one’s own ego. The
other (or ‘object’) provides merely a backdrop, an enabling venue, for the
formation of one’s sense of self. It is only once a stable sense of self and
other is achieved—and many never achieve it—that a true relationship
with the other, based on a recognition and acknowledgment of one’s dis-
tinct subjectivity, becomes possible.
An implication of Spero’s work is that once these stages of the anthro-
pocentric G-d relationship have been traversed, a key point of develop-
ment is reached as the second, ‘deocentric,’ dimension becomes accessi-
ble. Only then is the person “…on the road to experiencing a relationship
with G-d not based wholly in anthropocentric experiences.”19

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 79 08/01/2009, 23:51

 80 Personality Change through Contemplative Meditation

The deocentric dimension, in turn, is said to derive from genuine per-

ceptions and resultant object representations of an objective G-d, medi-
ated through such avenues as prayer, meditative practice, ritual, the per-
ception of Divine Providence in one’s life, and the like.20 Spero says little
about this deocentric dimension, however, and makes no attempt to cre-
ate a stage model for its development, as he does for the anthropocentric
dimension. Rather, he observes cautiously that “…some ultimate manner
of perceiving G-d may transcend the terms of object relations and other
psychological theories.”21 However, in a later work, he adds the following
intriguing comment:
Following a sufficient number of experiences with special perception (such
as prophecy) of the objective divine object, one could imagine the direct
internalization of an ideal ‘divine’ representation.22
This comment could serve well as a description of the intended psycho-
logical changes wrought through hitbonenut in Rabbi Dov Ber’s Tract on
Ecstasy.

Narcissistic, Anthropocentric Hitbonenut

Returning now to the Habad sources, we can observe that in addition
to the later stages of development described in the Tract on Ecstasy (which
relate to Spero’s deocentric dimension), Rabbi Dov Ber discusses two ear-
lier stages of problematic meditative involvement. He calls one stage ka-
vanah l’hitpaalut, meaning “intention [or motivation] towards ecstasy.” In
this case, the person does meditate and there are beginnings of a shiura;
however the endeavor is subtly undermined by tainted motives. One
such motive could be an excessive focus on the pleasure state that arises
in meditation (rather than focusing on the object of meditation). Another
is the motive to “feel oneself on a spiritual level”23 through the hitbonenut.
The individual may also have a desire to boast of his meditative experi-
ences or to feel greatness.24
The common denominator of these problematic motives is the factor of
yeshut (“somethingness”), which engenders a separation between the medi-
tator and the object of meditation.25 When aspects of oneself are inserted
into the focus of meditation, the depth and quality—and authenticity—of

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 80 08/01/2009, 23:51

 B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 81

the meditative gesture towards G-d are impaired.

It seems to me that no English term in current usage more accurately
captures the richly textured meaning of yeshut, as used in hasidic sources,
than the term ‘narcissism’ as it is used in contemporary psychoanalytic
discourse.26 Indeed, were we to formulate the problem put forth in the
Tract on Ecstasy in terms of this discourse, we would speak broadly of
a tendency to ‘use’ the dimly- and unempathetically-perceived object27
(whether a person, an affiliation, or an involvement such as meditation)
for self-gratification.28
The second type of false or imaginary spirituality discerned by Rabbi
Dov Ber involves a more gross, obvious problem that he calls “a complete-
ly foreign fire.”29 In this case there is no development of a shiura apparent
at all (“…in his mind there is no…meditative concept of G-d at all, only
in the most general way”30). The entire motivation from the very begin-
ning of the person’s involvement in spiritual practice was false, driven
by yeshut-narcissism. This person’s activity is one of trying to directly
arouse a kind of pseudo-spiritual enthusiasm (namely, the “fire”) associ-
ated with positive feelings and energy. Rabbi Dov Ber quotes Proverbs 18:2
to elucidate this case: “The fool desires not understanding, but rather the
revelation of his own heart.”31 This person has entered into meditation
not as a genuine search for G-d, but rather as a means of self-expression or
self-actualization (“the revelation of his own heart”).
The coupling of these sorts of motives with hitbonenut meditation is
a bad mix. Rabbi Dov Ber cautions against vain and superficial spiritual-
ity—the “foreign fire” that can result. He warns that if left unchecked, this
can deteriorate further into overt, grandiose delusions (with an autistic
cast).32 At this furthest extreme, the initially somewhat flawed orientation
has taken on truly pathological momentum, at which point we begin to
speak of not only pathology but of idolatry, in the form of ‘worshipping
oneself.’33 In this case, there is no shiura to speak of, but only a rampant
yeshut-narcissism with no room for the Other at all.
Unlike this level of “foreign fire,” Rabbi Dov Ber views the other level
of problematic hitbonenut, the “intention towards ecstasy,” as containing

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 81 08/01/2009, 23:51

 82 Personality Change through Contemplative Meditation

the seeds of future progress. (Thus, Rabbi Dov Ber does not consider the
foreign fire as a ‘stage’ of meditative hitpaalut, but rather as a competing,
artificial substitute for it.) He says that the very choice to be involved in
hitbonenut indicates that at a deeper level the person making the choice
is in fact motivated to connect with G-dliness. Were his only desire self-
ish and/or imaginary, he would not maintain the discipline. The shiura,
although rudimentary, is nevertheless present and potentially evolving.
Although the person seeks a certain feeling, an experience, rather than
seeking G-d, nevertheless underneath there is the desire for “…feeling
with reference to G-dliness.”34 Thus, this “intention to ecstasy” can be con-
sidered a sort of preliminary stage of groping towards G-d through a haze
of conflicting desires and intentions.

Sketching the Proposed Integration

I wish to argue that both an object relations and a Habad hasidic ac-
count of psychological development in the G-d relationship include two
general levels. These have been distinguished by Spero in terms of wheth-
er an anthropocentric or deocentric-derived G-d representation predomi-
nates; in Rabbi Dov Ber’s terms they are distinguished motivationally, by
whether one’s own yeshut-somethingness or a genuine interest in G-d is
driving the meditative endeavor.
I suggest that Spero’s six stages of narcissistic anthropocentric G-d-
object relational development correspond to the two negative types
of yeshut/narcissistic meditative (or pseudo-meditative) involvement
described in the Tract of Ecstasy. Thus, for example, Spero’s first, Mahl-
erian-derived, stage is that of autism. This refers to an imaginary sense of
idealized union with G-d (for example after a conversion experience)—a
kind of omnipotent fusion with the object. Rabbi Dov Ber’s description of
the “foreign fire” level of experience, which is devoid of shiura, and about
which he adapts the verse from Isaiah 47:8 and Zephania 2:15, “There is
I, and none else,” certainly evokes a grandiose fantasy with an ‘autistic’
quality.
The second problematic stage that Rabbi Dov Ber describes is much

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 82 08/01/2009, 23:51

 B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 83

more general and dynamic—the intention towards ecstasy. The sense is

of a person striving to engage in the meditation, yet still too caught up in
his own urgent need of basic psychological growth to properly focus on
and progress towards the ambitious spiritual goals of hitbonenut. I believe
that Spero’s four other stages of development can be placed here, as the
individual moves haltingly through the stages of symbiosis, practicing,
and rapprochement, towards the achievement of “emotional object con-
stancy.”
This crucial latter stage—that of transition to a deocentric experience
of G-d—dovetails nicely with the first of Rabbi Dov Ber’s five deocen-
tric stages, which he calls ‘acknowledgment.’ At this stage, the meditator
has begun to face the stark realization that he hasn’t even begun to truly
seek, let alone know, G-d. This is the acknowledgment of the Other, the
achievement of the sense of the object as stable and existing in its own
right, apart from one’s own needs and preoccupations.
There is a parable for this stage. A poor man contemplates the honor,
wealth, and splendor of a king. He develops a strong appreciation for
these things, greatly values and desires them, but does not feel he has any
personal connection to them now.35 Implied here is a critical shift from
a more or less subtly narcissistic orientation to the Object (as well as to
the practice of meditation itself as cited in note 28) to a mature stance of
recognition of the Other as other. This then opens up the possibility of
developing “…the unique relationship between the individual and the
Object called G-d”36 through hitbonenut, in a realistic, grounded way. The
achievement made in Rabbi Dov Ber’s first stage seems entirely analogous
to Spero’s description of the endpoint of the separation-individuation
process in relation to ‘the G-d Object.’37 In both perspectives, there now
ensues a shift from one fundamental way of relating to G-d to another.
A parable for this type of crucial personality shift occurring through
hitbonenut is told by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, in the name of Rabbi
Hillel Paritcher. A person walks towards a merry-go-round. Drawing
nearer, he observes people riding toy horses going around and around.
Then he actually steps onto the merry-go-round. Suddenly the people

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 83 08/01/2009, 23:51

 84 Personality Change through Contemplative Meditation

and toy horses stop going around, and the earth where he had been
standing before begins to circle. This is the shift. All the initial elements are
in place; what changes is the experience of the center and the experience
of who orbits whom. The profound valuing of the Other, of G-d, and an
unconflicted desire to connect with the Divine through meditative prac-
tice make the stage of acknowledgment “…the real beginning for those
who seek out and demand G-d in truth and sincerity, with a proper inten-
tion towards G-dliness specifically.”38

Beyond “Object” Relations

The Tract on Ecstasy describes the four ensuing, higher stages of deocen-
tric hitbonenut following the acknowledgment stage as generating ever-
increasing awareness and affective responsivity to G-d—with an impor-
tant shift. Having achieved the capacity to acknowledge and experience
G-d as separate from, and outside of, oneself, one then becomes capable
of beginning to experience that one is not separate from G-d. This growing
self-nullification facing G-d’s omnipresence defines the unfolding of the
higher stages of hitbonenut.39 Experiencing G-d as object lays the ground-
work for a true experience of G-d ontologically subsuming and suffusing
the self (whereas earlier there was a superficially similar, yet false, experi-
ence based on immaturity and ‘blurred boundaries’ between the self and
G-d [see Wilber’s discussion of the ‘pre/trans fallacy’]).40
This perspectival shift from experiencing G-d as Other to realizing G-d
as inclusive of self is illustrated by comments of Rabbi Hillel Paritcher on
the opening section of the Code of Jewish Law (Shulkhan Arukh 1:1). This
section enjoins the Jew to think of G-d as a “great King” who “stands
over him and observes his activities,” so that through this “…fear [of G-d]
will come to him,” and he will therefore measure his words and deeds
carefully. This opening passage frames that entire endeavor of Jewish
observance, detailed in the rest of the Code. On this passage, Rabbi Hillel
Paritcher comments:
They [the authors of this Judeo-legal teaching] have spoken, however,
exoterically…and they have written “…stands over him,” which implies
[G-d is] like an ‘other’ [zulato] who stands over him. But the truth is that he
is not separate from Him at all, and is nullified in Him absolutely, since He

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 84 08/01/2009, 23:51

 B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 85

flows into his entire inner being, and his innermost being, and is bringing
him into existence and vitalizing him every instant. We find [therefore] that
the human being is not outside of Him at all, and consequently the matter
of ‘fear’ is to be interpreted not according to the simple meaning that he
fears something outside himself. Rather, its interpretation is ‘abnegation’
[bittul]; namely, that “fear will come to him,” meaning until he becomes
completely self-abnegated to Him, not being an existent unto himself at
all, in any way…And this is the ultimate intention [of Torah Judaism], as
it is written: “The end of the matter, when all is said and done: Fear [i.e.,
abnegate to] G-d…”41
What is most interesting about these latter four levels is how they seem
to represent paradoxically the deepening of a relationship, together with the
progressive negation of the duality required by the entire concept of ‘relation-
ship.’ The absorption into the Other, the fruition of a relational movement of
meditational embrace and self-surrender, is not the negation of relationship,
but rather its climax. Thus, the actualized self-nullification that defines the
furthest reaches of this process is not the end of object-relating. Rather, it is
a teleological ‘end’ and purpose of Jewish meditation as a way of relating to
G-d.

Conclusion
When object relations concepts and in particular the imago of G-d
are applied to religious experience,42 the result is remarkably similar to
the concept of a shiura (the intentional object or ‘measure’) that evolves
through meditation implicit in hasidic texts. In both contexts we are speak-
ing of a malleable, yet relatively stable and specifiable, developmentally-
referenced,43 intrapsychic representation of G-d as a relational object.44
Furthermore, careful analysis of the G-d-object relational stage-type mod-
els of each tradition will show that there are many shared observations,
even some similar terminology, and—perhaps most importantly in view
of the troubled history of the relationship between Judaism and psychol-
ogy—a shared motivation to assist individuals who wish to increase the
depth and authenticity of their religious life.
In terms of practical application: I have found in teaching Jewish medi-
tation that the use of the integrative approach and terminology outlined
here seems to help people both appreciate and apply Jewish meditation

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 85 08/01/2009, 23:51

 86 Personality Change through Contemplative Meditation

better. Applying concepts and skills drawn from contemporary psychol-

ogy can increase the relevance and potency of the teachings of Jewish
meditation in our complex and ‘psychologized’ modern society. The clari-
fication of the relationship between Judaism and psychology that this re-
quires is an unavoidable and potentially highly-enriching challenge faced
by Judaism in this generation.45

Notes
1
I use the term “ideational” rather than “cognitive” in order to connote the classical Greek eidia, as
something existing beyond the mind but that the mind can grasp. When we want to read Habad
thought psychologically, we need to do so with certain basic ideas and assumptions of “classical”
Greek psychology in mind. In this connection, the term “idea” can serve as a serviceable transla-
tion of the Hebrew muskal, although David Bakan’s somewhat cumbersome “incorporeal intel-
ligibles” is a better literal translation. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11769910.) In
an unpublished manuscript Hitbonenut: A Psychological Reading of Hasidic Contemplative Meditation
(Lefcoe, 2008), I explore these hermeneutic issues at greater length.
2
I use the term “bonding” for the Baal Shem Tov’s deveikut advisedly, to allude to the psychological
process of that name by which a newborn forms a primary attachment to his/her parents and
other important early figures. There are profound processes that occur during this kind of “bond-
ing” which make the term both literally and metaphorically appropriate to the idea of deveikut.
The term hitbonenut derives from the root word for “understanding” in Hebrew.
3
Shneur Zalman of Liadi (N. Mindel, N. Mangel, Z.I. Posner, and J.I. Schochet, trans.) Tanya (New
York: Kehot Publications, 1981) pp. 17-18. First published in Slovita, 1796.
4
Ibid., pp. 4, 124, based on Zohar 1:103.
5
Dov Ber Shneuri, Kuntres Ha’Hitpaalut [Tract on Ecstasy] in Maamarey Admor Ha’Emtsaee: Kuntresim
(New York: Kehot Publications, 1991) pp. 37-196. First published in Koenigsberg, ca. 1831.
6
Hillel ben Meir Paritcher, Likutey Biurim [A Collection of Explanations] in Maamarey Admor Ha’Emstaee:
Kuntresim (New York: Kehot, 1991) pp. 52-196. First published in Warsaw, 1868; Hillel ben Meir
Paritcher, Likutey Biurim al Shaar Ha’Yihud [A Collection of Explanations on the Gate of Union] in
Ner Mitsvah ve’Torah Or (New York: Kehot Publications, 1995) pp. 295-390.
7
J.R. Greenberg and S.A. Mitchell, Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1983).
8
H. Kohut, The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the Psychoanalytic Treatment of Narcissistic
Personality Disorders (New York: International Universities Press, 1971).
9
A.M. Rizutto, “The Psychological Foundations of Belief in G-d” in Toward Moral and Religious Matu-
rity: The First International Conference on Moral and Religious Development (convened by Christiane
Brusselmans) (Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett Co., 1980).
10
Moshe Halevi Spero, “Parallel Dimensions of Experience in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy of the
Religious Patient,” Psychotherapy, vol. 27, no. 1 (1990) pp. 53-71.
11
Spero, “Identity and Individuality in the Nouveau-Religious Patient: Theoretical and Clinical As-
pects,” Psychiatry, vol. 50 (1987) p. 68.
12
Spero, “Parallel Dimensions,” pp. xiv-xvii.

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 86 08/01/2009, 23:51

 B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 87

13
Margaret S. Mahler, Fred Pine, and Anni Bergman, The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (New
York: Basic Books Inc., 1975).
14
Spero, “Identity and Individuality.”
15
P. Blos, The Adolescent Passage (International Universities Press, 1979). Cited in Spero, “Identity and
Individuality,” p. 56.
16
S.S. Gilfillian, “Adult Intimate Love,” Smith College Studies in Social Work, vol. 55 (1985) pp. 183-196.
(Cited in Spero, “Identity and Individuality.”)
17
J. Edward, J. Ruskin, and P. Turrine, Separation and Individuation (Gardener Press, 1981). (Cited in
Spero, “Identity and Individuality.”)
18
Spero does not appear to address the discrediting of the concept of autism as a normative stage
in human development by later developmental research on infants (Stern, Interpersonal World).
Mahler herself is reported to have acknowledged this problem and repudiated this aspect of her
work later in life (Coates, “John Bowlby”). Nevertheless, the notion of a non-normative, patho-
logical autistic withdrawal into fantasy—as the term states (Cahn, “Eugen Bleuler”)—remains
relevant to the discussion of delusional grandiosity and pseudo-spirituality in Rabbi Dov Ber’s
writings (below). My retention of Spero’s use of Mahler’s autistic subphase should be understood
as referring only to qualities of a pathological state, and not to a normative one in infancy.
S.W. Coates, “John Bowlby and Margaret S. Mahler: Their Lives and Theories,” Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, vol. 52 (2004) pp. 571-601.
C.H. Cahn, “Eugen Bleuler’s Concepts of Psychopathology,” trans. R. Kuhn, History of Psychiatry, vol.
15, no. 3 (2004) pp. 361-366.
D. Stern, The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology
(New York: Basic Books, 1985).
19
Moshe Halevi Spero, Religious Objects as Psychological Structures: A Critical Integration of Object Rela-
tions Theory, Psychotherapy, and Judaism (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992) p. 69. I may be
simplifying somewhat here. It would be more accurate to say that there are both anthropocentric
and deocentric dimensions of one’s G-d representations present during all stages. I suspect that
Spero would agree that some deocentric elements are present even at early religio-developmen-
tal stages, when anthropocentric elements predominate the G-d representation (this despite his
use of the phrase “wholly based” here). The question is one of degree; of which dimension pre-
dominates at a given point. Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity here I will stay with the more
‘categorical’ language.
20
Spero, “Parallel Dimensions.”
21
Spero, “Identity and Individuality,” p. 63.
22
Ibid., p. 59.
23
Paritcher, Likutey Biurim (1868/1991) p. 74.
24
Ibid., p. 71.
25
Shneuri, Kuntres Ha’Hitpaalut, pp. 63-64.
26
The term narcissism is being used here in a universal sense, and not as a categorical diagnostic
distinction. In his 1914 work On Narcissism: An Introduction, Standard Edition, vol. 14), Freud rec-
ognized an idea of universal (as distinct from a specifically pathological) narcissism. The idea of
a basic narcissistic dimension, stage, or developmental line in human psychology is common cur-
rency in contemporary psychodynamic psychology. Yeshut similarly carries this connotation, of
something natural and relatively universal, yet more prominent in some people than in others. In
the specific context of meditation, however, an otherwise “normal” or “healthy’ adult narcissism
may become a major stumbling block on the way to authentic progress. See A.P. Morrison, ed.,

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 87 08/01/2009, 23:51

 88 Personality Change through Contemplative Meditation

Essential Papers on Narcissism (New York: New York University Press, 1986) for a collection of key
articles on the topic.
27
See W.N. Evans, “The Mother: Image and Reality,” Psychoanalytic Review, vol. 59, no. 2 (1959) pp. 183-
1999; O.F. Kernberg, “An Ego-Psychology Object Relations Theory of the Structure and Treatment
of Pathologic Narcissism: An Overview,” Psychiatric Clinics of North America, vol. 12, no. 3 (1989) pp.
723-729; and H. Kohut, The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the Psychoanalytic Treatment
of Narcissistic Personality Disorders (New York: International Universities Press, 1971).
28
Consider Eagle’s succinct comments on “narcissism and interests:”
A critical feature of this narcissistic style…is a relative lack of interest in the object per se. Rather, inter-
est is dictated mainly or entirely by the aims of self-enhancement and self-aggrandizement…For
example, when an individual seems to relate to an object (e.g., music) only or mainly for the
purpose of self-aggrandizement, the genuineness of the interest in that object can then be ques-
tioned. M. Eagle, “Interests as Objects Relations” Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, vol. 4,
no. 4 (1981) pp. 527-565.
See also Spero, “Parallel Dimensions.”
29
Shneuri, Kuntres Ha’Hitpaalut, pp. 61-63, 77.
30
Ibid., p. 61.
31
Ibid., p. 63.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid., p. 62.
34
Ibid., p. 78.
35
Ibid., p. 82.
36
Spero, “Parallel Dimensions,” p. 54.
37
Ibid.
38
Shneuri, Kuntres Ha’Hitpaalut, p. 81.
39
In ascending order, the four higher stages are called “good thought,” “ecstasy in the heart,” “inten-
tion in the heart,” and “simple will.” A detailed treatment of these higher stages would take us
too far afield here. The reader is referred to Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh’s cassette recording, Jewish
Meditation: Fundamental Structures and Practices (Rehovot: Gal Einai Institute, 1993). See also N.
Lowenthal, Communicating the Infinite: The Emergence of the Habad School (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1990); and my unpublished manuscript (see note 1).
40
Ken Wilbur, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (Boston: Shambhala, 2001).
41
Paritcher, Likutey Biurim (1868/1995) p. 342.
42
See Rizutto, “Psychological Foundations;” and Spero, “Parallel Dimensions.”
43
Rabbi Dov Ber Shneuri’s Tract on Ecstasy explains at length how maturity and life experience impact
upon one’s ability to develop a connection to G-d through hitbonenut. We can discern in these
discussions a notion that might be called “meditation readiness,” akin to “reading readiness” in
educational psychology.
44
Yitzchak Ginsburgh, Bakshu Panai [Seek My Face] (Rehovot: Gal Enai, 1984). Rabbi Ginsburgh ex-
plains how hitbonenut, despite its nominal focus on G-dliness (as distinct from G-d Himself),
is nevertheless always undertaken within a larger, relational/personal context—that of prayer.
Lowenthal (“Communicating the Infinite”) cites a parable by the early Habad thinker Reb Yitshak
Aizik Hummler that hitbonenut is like a child contemplating his father and thereby adding di-
mensions of matured understanding to his primal recognition of the father. This analogy embeds
the project of hitbonenut into a relational framework.
45
The challenge is unavoidable, as we see that Jews of all ages, including very observant Jews, are

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 88 08/01/2009, 23:51

 B’Or Ha’Torah 18 (5769/2008) 89

using modern mental health sciences to address a variety of issues. The detailed psychological
teachings of Hasidism, the Torat Ha’Nefesh of the Baal Shem Tov provides the tools with which to
effectively clarify and integrate elements of psychology with Torah.

For Further Reading

Dov Ber Shneuri, Kuntres Ha’Hitbonenut [Shaar Ha’Yihud] [Tract on Meditation (Gate of Union)] in Ner
Mitsvah ve’Torah Or (New York: Kehot Publications, 1995) pp. 216-294. First published in Kopys in
1820.
Yitzchak Ginsburgh, Lecture on Hitbonenut to Instructors at the Merkaz Ha’Rav Talmudic Academy, Jerusa-
lem, cassette recording in Hebrew (Rehovot: Gal Einai Institute, 1997).
N. Lowenthal, Communicating the Infinite: The Emergence of the Habad School (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1990).
Moshe Halevi Spero, Religious Objects as Psychological Structures: A Critical Integration of Object Relations
Theory, Psychotherapy, and Judaism (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992).
Margaret S. Mahler, Fred Pine, and Anni Bergman, The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (New
York: Basic Books Inc., 1975).
R. Elior, The Paradoxical Ascent to G-d: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism (Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1993).

B'Or Ha'Torah 18 Lefcoe.indd 89 08/01/2009, 23:51