Wednesday, July 26, 2017


All my blog posts over the years have been about topics that the intellect alone can employ to get to the desired outcome.  Now I will initiate a topic in which the intellect can start (come to the threshold) but cannot finish.  I'm talking about real love, opening the heart, and showing real feelings to others.
The limbic system (or mammalian brain, as it is sometimes called) -- the seat of emotions -- is structured very differently from the neo-cortex, the seat of the intellect. This difference is reflected in the Kabbalistic tree of life where between the 'upper' three sefirot of intellect and the next ('lower') three of feeling there is a sefira called Da'at (knowledge).
When moving 'down' into the feeling realm where one really knows and in turn is really known by another, there must be a scary* movement into 'unknowing' because one is handing control from the neo-cortex to the limbic system. 
All I can ask of another human (e.g. friend, lover, psychedelic guide) is that they be with me as I move past the threshold of Da'at to the other side.

* In Kabbalah, Da'at, if it is represented at all (in some schemes there is only an empty space where this sefira should be), has a dashed (not solid) circle, implying that before knowing there must be [a scary] unknowing.  In other words, the dashed/broken circle represents the breaking of the heart (i.e. really, the breaking of the [stranglehold of the] intellect)

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Rage over slights swamps our ability to perform the mitsva of loving our neighbor.*
Does the Tora have a fail-safe system to deal with these rages?  Yes.  It's called circumcising the heart and it is found in Deuteronomy 10 and 30.  In chapter 10 we are commanded to circumcise our heart, whereas in chapter 30 God is the one who does it.  This implies that both God and man have a part in this operation which has to be done at the rage point; then, like a seed (the moment of rage) planted in the earth, the sun (God) and the soil (Adam means soil) working together do it.
Deuteronomy 30 shows me that -- to paraphrase and contradict the New Testament -- the "ruler of this world" is God and He has cursed (30:1) me to rage in exile (30:1).  But I can 'return' (so to speak) from this 'exile' whenever God and I team up to circumcise (i.e. open up) my heart.

* remember, even an enemy (the ass who cut me off on the road and made me rage) is our 'neighbor' and so I am commanded to love him

From my previous blog three years ago:
Deuteronomy 30, Jeremiah 31, and Ezekiel 11 and 36 promise us that the Tablets (representing 'the Law' and the Covenant) that were kept in the Holy of Holies -- which was destroyed -- will be put into the Jews' hearts.
In other words, Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are prophesying that the Tablets / Law / Covenant [that were in the Tabernacle/Temple, and by implication 'remote'] will no longer be hidden and distant (Deut.30:11,14), but will be written on the heart.
This writing on the heart (instead of stone) is what Jeremiah may mean by a "new covenant-not-like- [old]-covenant".  Again, this new covenant will be written/inscribed/cut into the heart, which is not like the way of the 'old' covenant that was lying 'remotely' in the Holy of Holies inscribed on stone.
All this implies that the Tanakh sees the [stone] Temple (and the Land [of Israel], the Priesthood, and kingship) as a crutch, at best, that would eventually have to be destroyed so this 'new' way could take hold.  The Pharisees/Sages/Rabbis were conscious of this task and started the transcription (from stone to heart) just in time. ("Give me Yavneh and its sages, [not Jerusalem and its stone]" - Gittin 56b)*

* Judaism survived because it became 'portable'.  That is, the 'Oral Law' transferred to the individual all the 'mana' (the supernatural power, effectiveness and prestige attached to an object or person) that had been attached to Priest, Land,Temple, and king.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

The role of prophet is only to bring Israel back to the Tora (i.e. mitsva observance); which is the same as saying back to holiness and communion with God.
Let me succinctly illustrate this 'trinity' of God, holiness, and mitsva observance.
The only way sinful man can commune with a holy God is through standards that were given to us by the Creator Himself; like when He says "Be holy, as I am holy" (Lev.20:26).
And -- of course -- the way to this 'holiness' is through observance of the mitsvahs.*

* Jewish law, or Halakha, is the collective body of the 613 commandments or mitsvahs from the Tora from a PRACTITIONARY (i.e. how we apply the mitsvahs in the Tora) perspective.

An Approach to a 'Hard' Jewish Law: Sabbath Observance


What if I find dignity and freedom in working and resting whenever I want?

Shabbat is the only ritual commandment among the 10 commandments and-- as far as I know-- the only ritual commandment (commandments between God and man) the prophets railed against its non-observance.

So perhaps it's THE ritual link to the non-ritual / ethical / moral commandments.

How?

Let's say that I fail at a moral test-- which is really a test given by God; therefore I have not only failed myself and the person or society, but I have failed God as well.

I am now naked and ashamed. What do I do? Slough off God and the commandments?

Not so fast.

Perhaps I can redeem myself through a ritual, which is the only ritual-- remember-- that is in the 10 Commandments, and the only ritual that the prophets railed against its non-observance.

What does my moral / ethical failure represent? A lack of faith in God. How? Because if I really trusted God, I would have allowed myself to move courageously into the do-the-right-thing zone and let the chips fall where they may by performing the famous 'leap of faith'. But I didn't, and so I now mourn in my nakedness and shame ('dust and ashes').

It is at this vulnerable point -- a point that many defect to Christianity because it holds out a get out of jail (the Commandments) free card -- that the Sabbath stands as a sentinel to remind (zakhor!) us that we can return to some semblance of dignity by REDEEMING OUR FAITHLESSNESS IN GOD BY HAVING FAITH IN GOD THROUGH OBSERVANCE (shamor!) OF THE SABBATH, WHICH IS REALLY ONE DAY IN WHICH WE CEASE 'TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS' IN ORDER TO RITUALLY SHOW OUR FAITH THAT GOD WILL PROVIDE.

It's as if the coward has a second chance in a simulated area in which he can redeem his failure to 'leap' with a more modest 'step of faith'.

It is from this simulated moral victory that gives us the rest in order to come back to the real moral world (or at least be able to show our face in it, instead of hiding in shame).

I have still failed morally (the real moral test in the real world), but I have at least stayed within Judaism / the Tora, which has offered me a rest and dignity through a simulated moral test.
Delete

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

 Jung theorizes that men (or the male archetype) represent* God to women; so as soon as a man doubts that he is attractive to a woman he doesn't represent God anymore.
In other words, I can be a chronic masturbator who lives with his mother and is unemployed, but as soon as I feel that this makes me unattractive to a woman, I cease representing God.
To make this clearer, God is invisible.  The male (the representation of God) can easily feel invisible to women because he is not usually wanted by women in the obvious way of -- let's say -- pornographic magazines.  Women's sexuality is mysterious because she is not responding essentially to the male form but to an archetype: the visible representation of the invisible God. (i.e. Man).  Unless a man knows this, he can easily get 'lost in space' and exclaim like the character in Revolutionary Road who asks his wife, "What am I"; to which his wife replied, "You are the most wonderful thing in the world.  You are a man"; or like the Seinfeld episode where the woman told Elaine how she loses interest in a man:  "They whine... and 'tell me' (subconsciously perhaps) that they are not good enough for me and -- you know what-- I believe them".  Physically attractive women usually don't have to do much to attract men; and likewise, a man (any man, even a physically unattractive one) usually doesn't have to do much either to attract a woman other than trust that he is "the most wonderful thing in the world": the visible representation of the invisible God.

* R. Hirsch comments that the root of the Hebrew word for likeness (damah)  in the verse  "In His likeness" (Gen.1:26) explains why Adam is called 'Adam'.  'Adam' is NOT referring to earth (adamah) or blood (dam) or the combination 'red earth', but to man's likeness to God.   He thus translates 'Adam' as "a representative", not simply a creature of earth and blood.  

Delete

Sunday, June 11, 2017


Mythical man's (i.e. the Orthodox) need for Tanakh to be historically true and the secular position that opposes him both miss the point.
History alone (and here the Orthodox and their secular opponents both err in their dedication to 'history') is not enough.  Man does not  have to live by history alone, but can live with a mythical overlay in, under, and over history -- the mythical tied to the historical -- a mythical patina over historical consciousness.
This leads to orthopraxy.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

On Dealing With the 'Hard' Jewish Laws:

Observing [the rituals] has to be rooted in each individual Jews' ABILITY rather than in her WILL.  Only that Jew who is capable of hearing the divine voice of revelation speaking and commanding through a particular law or practice could relate to such a law or practice as an integral meaningful part of his Jewish life rather than as an obsolete ritual demanding rigid, rote obedience.  (Franz Rosenzweig)



On the Hard Questions We Ask About God and tora:

God purposely conceals His true purpose.  In fact, He must occasionally mislead man.  If everything were clear, men would be automatons, and those least free, most timid and fearful, would be the most "pious".  But evidently God wants only the free to be His.  He must make it difficult, nay impossible to understand His actions, so as to give man the opportunity truly to believe.... So there remains nothing for God but to tempt man, even to deceive him. (Franz Rosenzweig)



Monday, October 19, 2015

God cannot create something other than Himself.

God cannot hide from Himself the fact that He is God.

The former destroys Western Dualism; the latter destroys Eastern Non-Dualism.

Since the two 'axioms' cancel each other out, I am free from both 'East' and 'West'.

What this does is to clear a space [between 'East' and 'West' with Israel at the center-- the mean point where meaning is] in order for the Flash of inspiration (the Ruach haKodesh-- the spirit located at the 'Center' / the mean / Israel /Jerusalem/ the Temple) to occur.


ADDENDUM:  I am writing this on 7-1-17.  I just noticed that about 10 years ago (7-11-07) I made the final blog entry to my last blog.  Since above is my first blog entry in eight and a half years and it picks up -- subject-wise-- where I left off, I decided to place it here.

"There are only three philosophical positions that I can conceive of taking: Monotheism, pantheism, or agnosticism.
Monotheism, which is the position I've chosen, is [logically] impossible since there cannot be anything other than God.  It does however respond to man's need for an Other.
Pantheism is [logically] 'true', but there is no Other in it.
Agnosticism finds both of these positions objectionable.  It refuses to assume oneness with the All (pantheism / Monism) and get tagged as 'It' (i.e. God) or worship an Other (Monotheism / dualism) who cannot [logically] exist."