A friend, working through the phrase descent for the sake of ascent, asked a question that deserved a real answer rather than a reflexive one.
Must the descent be chosen, deliberately undertaken, in order for the ascent to follow? What does the phrase actually mean?
And underneath both questions, the one that mattered most: is this a teaching that prescribes suffering—a spiritual instruction to go looking for the fall?
The Discomfort Is Correct to Have
If descent for the sake of ascent meant what it can sound like it means—that the height is only reachable by manufacturing the fall, that the wise course is to go seeking hardship because hardship is spiritually productive—it would be a dangerous teaching, not a wise one. Manufactured suffering is not devotion. It is a kind of theater in which self-inflicted damage is mistaken for spiritual depth.
The tradition draws a firm line here, preserved in a Hasidic teaching connected to the Tzava’at HaRivash: one must not deliberately lower oneself morally or spiritually in the hope that the subsequent return will prove productive. That is different from accepting a hardship that arrives unbidden, undertaking a discipline freely chosen, or descending toward another person in service—differences this account will return to. The same discussion also warns that some who descend remain below: descent is not an automatic mechanism of elevation. Sometimes descent becomes a passage; sometimes it becomes a residence.
Descent creates conditions in which return, recovery, elevation, or some other transformation may arise. It does not compel the transformation, guarantee it, or make the descent good in retrospect. Any reading that turns the teaching into permission to manufacture a fall has misread it before it has even begun.
The discomfort, then, is not a failure to understand the idea. It is the correct first response to a version of the idea that the tradition itself already rejects.
What the Tradition Actually Says
Rabbi Abbahu makes the Talmud’s most radical statement of the possibility: in the place where penitents stand, even the completely righteous cannot stand. The Gemara records a dissent immediately after—Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the consolations envisioned by the prophets concern penitents, while what awaits the completely righteous is something no eye has seen. The Gemara leaves the disagreement standing, though later interpreters developed ways of reconciling the two positions. What the audacity of Rabbi Abbahu’s claim did was give later Jewish thought fertile ground to build on, dispute and all.
It is worth naming plainly that this passage concerns teshuvah in its original, narrower sense—moral and religious return, not bereavement, not embodiment, not adversity in the widest sense the word “descent” can carry. What follows in this account, where the Talmud’s language of return is placed alongside grief, exile, and the soul’s descent into a body, is a synthesis being built here, not the plain sense of the text itself.
At the same time, the word teshuvah already contains the architecture in miniature. Teshuvah means return, and return presupposes departure: one cannot come back from a place one has never left. Departure is therefore a condition of return, but not its command. Nothing in the word instructs a person to create distance from G-d so that return may become possible. It names what becomes possible once distance—through error, estrangement, or the ordinary drift of a life—already exists. In that limited but important sense, descent is not the instruction teshuvah gives. It is the condition teshuvah answers.
Later Kabbalah and Hasidism—Chabad thought with particular systematic force—develop the underlying pattern into the principle of yeridah tzorech aliyah, descent for the sake of ascent. In this frame, the soul’s descent into a body is a genuine descent, not merely exile from a purer state left behind. It is dispatched downward because there is work that can only be done from inside a body, inside a world of concealment and friction and constraint, and no amount of remaining above could accomplish it. This is one systematic account among others the wider tradition offers—some stress divine service, some purification of the physical world, some the making of a dwelling below—and Chabad’s is the version most explicit about the mechanism itself.
This is where prescription collapses into description, and the distinction is everything. Nothing here instructs the soul to descend. The soul is already descending—that is simply what a life is. What the teaching offers is an account of what the descent is for, so that when it comes, it does not have to be pure loss.
…For the Sake of…
The phrase itself carries a tension worth making plain. “For the sake of” can name two different things: a purpose built into the descent from the beginning, or a use discovered only in response to what has already happened. Chabad’s language of the soul dispatched downward for work belongs to the first. What follows in this account—Nachman’s fallings, Frankl’s freedom exercised inside what could not be avoided—leans toward the second, and it is the second on which the argument here actually depends.
Some Hasidic readings carry the stronger claim further, treating not only the soul’s embodiment but the particulars of a life as providentially ordered toward a later ascent. Nothing in this account requires that reading. But even where some form of providential design is granted, providence is not the same as a script. If choice is real, a descent may create the conditions for ascent without determining the response—without turning response into inevitability. A person may turn toward return, resist it, find themselves unable to make it, or remain below. Descent opens a possibility. It does not dictate what a person will do with it.
This is free agency.
The Ones Who Did Not Choose It
Later Hasidic teaching understood some descents of the tzaddik as enabling the elevation of those—and of the sparks—encountered below: the Lurianic image of light scattered at the world’s shattering, waiting in the depths for someone to find it and lift it free, the labor of birur, sifting, undertaken in exactly the dark places a person would rather not have to enter. In some accounts, the fall is not depicted as a calculated choice. It is simply where the sparks require the tzaddik to be.
Nachman of Breslov is the fullest demonstration of a descent that was not chosen. Biographical tradition describes a man given to recurring melancholy and spiritual dejection—not a technique adopted for its usefulness, but a condition that came and went on its own terms, difficult and unbidden. What he taught as yeridah tzorech aliyah was not the decision to go down. It was what he sought to recover from his own lowering once it had already happened—his own nefilot, his fallings, treated not as interruptions to the spiritual life but as part of its structure. He did not volunteer for the position. He simply refused to let being there mean nothing.
A Story From the Same Family
The Christian story of Jesus is born within the symbolic world of Second Temple Judaism, and it gives descent and reversal one of history’s most consequential narrative forms. In Gethsemane he asks that the cup pass from him, and it does not. What follows offers no shortcut: arrest, trial, and crucifixion—a death his earliest followers would interpret through Deuteronomy’s language of the one “hanged on a tree” and accursed. At the level of the story, this is experienced as defeat first: the disciples scatter, Peter denies him three times, and for three days there is nothing yet to redeem the loss. What the resurrection claims is not that the death was secretly untrue. It is that the descent reaches all the way to the bottom before anything rises from it.
The pattern was not foreign to the tradition he stood inside. Bodily resurrection was already a living hope within Second Temple Judaism, and when Matthew has him invoke the sign of Jonah—three days in the depths before the prophet emerges and resumes his commission—he is drawing on an existing Jewish image of descent and return, not inventing one. None of this should be collapsed into Rabbi Abbahu’s teaching on teshuvah, or into the later Hasidic language of yeridah tzorech aliyah: the claims are not identical, and the centuries and contexts separating them are real. But the story belongs to the same larger family of Jewish images in which abasement, exile, and death need not be the end of the account. It stands alongside the other instances gathered here, not above or beneath them.
Two Lives, Two Registers
Augustine did not manufacture the years before his conversion. He lived them—the pear stolen for no reason but the theft itself, Carthage as what he later called a cauldron of illicit loves; the long detour through Manichaean dualism, a cosmology of warring kingdoms of light and darkness that promised a clean answer to the problem of evil; the ambition for a rhetorician’s career that never quieted the restlessness underneath it. He wrote, addressing the divine directly, that thou hast made us for thyself, and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee—and the sentence only carries its full weight because of what preceded it: years of trying to fill that restlessness with everything except what would actually answer it. The Confessions does not treat those years as wasted time before the real story starts. It treats them as the material the real story is made from.
Maimonides did not choose the devastation that followed his brother David’s drowning. In a letter written years afterward, he described a year in which he could not rise from where the grief had put him, and a wound that had not, even by then, fully closed. The Guide for the Perplexed—composed the better part of two decades later, for minds divided by apparently incompatible claims of revelation and philosophy—does not present itself as an answer to that loss, and the connection should not be forced. Still, it matters that the man writing for those divided minds also knew what it was to continue living after the world that had sustained him could not be restored.
What Frankl Named
Viktor Frankl gave one of the clearest secular formulations of what may remain available inside an unavoidable descent, and it is worth being precise about what he actually claimed. His argument in Man’s Search for Meaning is narrower than “hardship produces growth”: of everything that can be stripped from a person, the one freedom that cannot be taken is the choice of attitude toward what cannot be avoided. This is not a claim that everyone who suffers exercises that freedom successfully, or that failing to find meaning in unbearable circumstance is itself a failure. It is a claim about what remains possible, illustrated by those who managed it—not a standard by which the rest are measured.
Frankl had begun developing logotherapy before his deportation. The camps did not originate the conviction; they subjected it to a test no theory could have chosen. There he watched men who, stripped of everything else, still chose how to meet what remained—walking through the huts comforting others, giving away a last piece of bread—and took this as sufficient evidence that the last of the human freedoms, the one that cannot be confiscated, is the attitude a person adopts toward what cannot be avoided. He would later distinguish this from cheap optimism. What he called tragic optimism is not the claim that suffering is good. It is the stubborn capacity to turn suffering into achievement, guilt into the occasion for change, and a life’s transience into a reason to act while there is still time left to act. None of this required the descent to have been chosen. It required only that something in the person, once inside it, remained capable of response.
In Frankl’s register, ascent is not merely a reward bestowed once the descent is over. Its possibility can begin inside the descent itself, in the relation a person is still able—sometimes—to take toward what is happening. Some version of this idea now circulates through recovery culture and pain psychology—the notion that the physical fact of a hardship and the meaning made of it are related but not identical. Whether these later formulations descend historically from Frankl, or from something older still, is not a line that can honestly be drawn. What can be said is that they represent a related insight, articulated in a secular register and reached by a different road.
The Gold in the Crack
None of this is confined to a single tradition, which is itself worth noticing rather than explaining away. The Japanese practice of kintsugi repairs broken pottery by rejoining the pieces with urushi lacquer, then tracing the seam with powdered gold. Kintsugi does not conceal the damage. It makes the repair part of the object’s visible history, honoring the break without pretending the breaking itself was good. The aesthetic it draws on, wabi-sabi, finds beauty in imperfection, impermanence, and incompletion—a vessel’s value lies not in having remained unbroken, but in being remade without erasing what happened to it. Here too, transformation presupposes descent: no break, no repair; no rupture, no golden seam. Brokenness is not praised or sought. It is the condition to which the art responds, and the material a new form of beauty is made from.
Joseph Campbell proposed reading a wide range of world mythology through a recurring pattern—separation, ordeal, and a return that carries something the world before the departure did not have. The model has been criticized, fairly, for flattening real differences between the traditions it draws on, and it should not be mistaken for an established law of culture or psychology. Even so, its durability says something: readers in very different settings continue to recognize the shape. That recognition does not prove a universal law or a single point of origin, but it suggests that the pattern answers to something many people already know about transformation.
What to Tell a Friend
No one has to go looking for the descent, and the Hasidic warning preserved in connection with the Tzava’at HaRivash says as much about deliberately engineered spiritual descent. It comes on its own schedule, usually not the one that would have been chosen, in a shape no one would have designed for themselves. That much of the friend’s discomfort was correct from the start.
Not every descent gathered here bears the same relation to choice. Some arrive wholly unbidden. Some begin in choices whose meaning becomes visible only afterward. Some are accepted when they can no longer be avoided. What unites them is not a single psychology of falling but a shared refusal to believe that the lowest point exhausts the meaning of the life passing through it.
The teaching does not say that suffering is good. It does not promise that every loss will become intelligible, or that everyone who descends will emerge visibly stronger for it. It says something smaller, and perhaps more merciful: descent does not disqualify a life from holiness, and what can sometimes be carried back from below could not have been gathered anywhere else. No one is commanded to fall. No one who has fallen is commanded to make the falling mean something. The penitent do not stand where the righteous cannot because the fall was secretly good. The claim is only that return can open a nearness that unbroken righteousness alone does not open—and that when something can be carried back from the depth, the descent need not have the last word.
Discover more from Many Lamps, One Flame
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.