Chapter 8 Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia No Jewish mystic has been associated more with the idea and experience of unio mystica than Abraham Abulafia (1240–1292). The massive number of arti- cles and books dedicated to his mystical path in general and his unitive mysti- cism in particular is remarkable;1 especially significant in this field is the rich and diverse work of Moshe Idel. According to Idel, Abulafia—as the founder of “ecstatic Kabbalah”2—represents more than any other Kabbalist a type of ecstatic mysticism that aspires to, realizes, and experiences unio mystica at the core of its religious path. Abulafia promoted ecstatic unitive mysticism all over Europe, and his spir- itual approach was influential on generations after his death in 1292. Even now, his experiences, writings, and mystical manuals continue to affect those interested in Jewish mysticism.3 A historical view of Jewish mysticism must grant Abulafia a unique position as both the creator and transmitter of a new form of ecstatic mysticism, offering a powerful mystical path leading to unio mystica.4 Abulafia is distinguished in the landscape of Jewish mystical writing by the remarkable number of detailed techniques of letter permutations and medi- tations on divine names that he prescribed in order to reach mystical union, alongside a series of unitive formulas and phrases he employed and recom- mended on the mystical path. No one in Jewish history had ever prescribed 1 On Abraham Abulafia’s mystical path see: Idel, The Mystical Experience; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah; Idel, Messianic Mystics, 58–100; Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia; Elliot Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow and Temporal Transcendence, Angelic Embodiment and the Alterity of Time in Abraham Abulafia,” Kabbalah 18 (2008): 133–190; Elliot Wolfson, “Abraham Ben Samuel Abulafia and the Prophetic Kabbalah,” in Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah; New Insights and Scholarship, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn (New York: NYU Press, 2011), 68–90. 2 On Abulafia as the founder of “ecstatic Kabbalah” see Scholem, Major Trends, 105–129. 3 See Boaz Huss, “The Formation of Jewish Mysticism and its Impact on the Reception of Abraham Abulafia in Contemporary Kabbalah,” in Religion and Its Others, ed. Heicke Bock et al. (Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag, 2008), 142–162. 4 See Idel, “Abraham Abulafia and ‘Unio Mystica’,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, Volume III, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 147–178; Idel, Kabbalah: New perspectives, 61–70; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–31. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/97890043�8730_009 152 Chapter 8 in writing such a breadth of mystical technique leading to unio mystica.5 This remarkable variety of formulas and phrases situates him as the most effective promoter of unitive ecstasy in the history of Judaism, at least up until Hasidism. Given the existing breadth of detailed analysis of unio mystica in Abulafia,6 I will limit the current study to a general exposition, in which the main themes and ideas attached to unio mystica in Abulafia’s Kabbalah will be explored. It is quite clear that philosophical (Falsafa) psychology and the entire Neo- Aristotelian structure of thought (including the phrases of noetic union dis- cussed above) are the main theoretical context in which Abulafia’s mystical union functioned.7 The development of radical mystical paths leading to unio mystica, based upon a Neo-Aristotelian structure, is not unique to Abulafia, and should be understood in the context of 13th-century developments in Jewish and Arab Neo-Aristotelian philosophy, including Jewish Averroism. Abulafia and several of his followers were undeniably key figures in the development of unitive mysticism in Judaism. Abulafia’s mysticism is based upon Averroes’ unitive noetic metaphys- ics, though Maimonides (both the younger and the elder) did not allow for a noetic union with God and rejected Averroes’ metaphysics.8 Idel considers that “in several places he [Abulafia] states, in accordance with the view of Ibn Rushd,9 and in contradiction to that of Al-Farabi and Maimonides that cleav- ing to the active intellect is possible in this world [. .] in order to express this union, Abulafia utilizes the well-known formula originating in Islamic mysti- cism ‘he is he’ ”.10 In several discussions, Abulafia asserts, following this tradition, that cleav- ing to the active intellect and even experiencing a mystical union with God are both possible in this world. Uniting with the metaphysical realms and ulti- mately with God, an action which Maimonides associates with the eschato- logical state of the afterlife, is accessible for Abulafia in this world, through powerful mystical techniques that are capable of bringing about eschatological 5 See: Afterman, “Letter Permutation”. 6 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 61–73; Idel, Messianic Mystics, 58–100. 7 On Abulafia’s philosophical sources see Moshe Idel, Secrets and Pearls: On Abraham Abulafia’s Esotericism (forthcoming); Idel, The Mystical Experience, 124–134; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–31. 8 See Idel, “Abualfia’s Secrets of the Guide,” 294–296; Afterman, Devequt, 154–168. On Maimonides’ position in line with Al-Farabi criticizing the possibility of the human intel- lect to cleave to the active intellect see Pines, “The Limitation” and the overview discus- sion by Stern, The Matter and Form, 97–249. 9 Idel refers to Ivry, “Averroes on Intellection,” 76–85. 10 See Idel, The Mystical Experience, 125–126..