Wandering thru Psalm 46 and meandering beyond-

First things first (for a change of pace)___
I refer you to: http://psalms.schechter.edu/
There, please read the Psalm 46 & its commentary.

Then you can come back here (enlightened). "Hopefully."

Yup. We are going to look a Psalms. Again.

All to often we read the Psalms in our Siddur and if we are not that conversant with the subtleties of the Hebrew language, we read them in someone’s best guess of what the English translation would/should be.

Or some “poetic” English interpretation thereof. Usually in an archaic syntax, or worse- some au courant syntax used by the Chicago Tribune or e. e. cummings and his ilk.

The same is, most likely, true if you are sitting at home reading some favorite collection of Psalms or another (even if it the wonderful Interlinear English/Hebrew ArtScroll), and ‘accept’ the Psalm you are reading for what we have presented to us as being “the whole Megillah”.

Is it?

Do you... do I... stop and consider just ‘what is going on’ here. Hopefully the Schechter presentation will change your mind about all that. And Psalm 45 is a great place to start our investigation - where we find this called-out as: A Grand Song of Faith... and Fantasy.

Ah. But of course you will (hopefully) be sidetracked (as I was) and other questions will arise. Other comments. Other... ‘things’.

For example:
I encountered the word eschatology. Oh yes. I have encountered that before but I was curious about “whose” concept of eschatology are we considering. Well 'Wikipedia 'was quick to tell me that there are MANY concepts of eschatology including: Bahá'í, Brahma, Kumari, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Zoroastrian, and, just what we’re looking for: Jewish eschatology. And it is there that we encounter the Jewish concept(s) of Idolatry [‘foreign’ or ‘strange’ worship] as discussed in the tractate Nezikin, in the Talmud.

But, of course, the thread leads further. The subject matter; Avodah Zarah, is a controversial tractate, certainly as far as the Roman Christian Church (“fathers”) are/were concerned [but that line of inquiry goes off into yet another direction that we can follow another time]. Instead the thing that caught my eye is “swearing a false oath”.

An observant knowledgeable Jew will typically avoid taking an oath.

Simply: If we respect our own word, then other should have reason to trust us even if do not swear by an oath. Of course the past few years the news media has given ample reasons for any person to question this. HOWever that is not the reason that we avoid swearing an oath. We do not consider the solemn commitment in swearing an oath as something that we approach in a casual manner; this is an undertaking as we stand before G-d and that means a really great deal to us. And it is here that we consider Rashi, when he discusses taking a false oath (or: a true but also a pointless oath) [see Exodus 20:7 &/or Deut. 5:11]. “To swear falsely that (this) pillar of stone is really gold; or that (this pillar of wood is (really) wood.” WHAT is the point, and why would you swear to such a thing?

Are you not really swearing in the name of G-d that you perform not only a falsehood but you actually deny G-d and profane His name (HaShem)? You are indeed. If you are ‘invited’ to appear in an American Court it might be advisable to do as an observant Jew would do and instead of swearing to the Truth, Whole Truth, etc. - to “So Affirm”. This is an acceptable form in our court system. And you avoid the situation of putting yourself in a position that you feel uncomfortable with, vis-a-vis HaShem.

As a rabbi at Beth Israel in Berkeley says; “ We already stand obligated to observe Torah. We have the name of the “People of G-d,” so that we already have to power by our behavior to profane G-d’s name, or to sanctify the name. We do not have the power to escape from that role. ‘Rav’ believes that, we do not misuse our ability to swear it we take an oath to help us fulfill our role.

So where were we? Oh yes. Psalm 46. Look where we can go... where we can get to... if we consider some of the minutia that we can find in Psalms... and in our many holy writings.

If we look.

And think.

Shalom.

Then came Bronson... er: Yitro --- Of Cabbages & Kings... & In-Laws

"The time has come," the Walrus
said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-
wax -
Of cabbages - and kings-
And why the sea is boiling hot -
And whether pigs have wings."

Yitro (not to be confused with Homer and Jethro), who we know as the man who may well have been a professor in the world’s first Business School, with his dictum to appoint a cadre of leaders in a descending order of responsibilities - in order to relieve his son-in-law of the wearisome burden of dealing with the ‘peoples’ minutiae; preceded his visit to the Israelite Nation in the desert with a somewhat confusing (to our minds) message to Moses announcing his arrival in the following manner:

“I, your father-in-law, Jethro am coming to you, with your wife and her two sons.”

[Yitro, bye-the-bye, had seven names (1. Re’uel; 2. Yeter; 3. Yitro; 4. Chovev; 5. Chaver; 6. Kini; and 7. Puti’el) & perhaps that goes toward explaining the wording of his message... as we may well find out as we progress]

Rashi [What IS bothering Rashi?] said, in elaboration: “If you will not come out to greet me for my sake, the come for your wife’s sake, and if not for her sake, the come for the sake of her two children.”
For my sake?
For your wife’s sake?
For her children’s sake?
For pomp?
Indeed, why Moses in particular should “come out” to greet him? Or, even, why assume that Moses (et. al.) would not come “out” to greet him/them?

Which ‘person’ was it that wrote the message? Was it Yithro or one of his six other personalities? (and where was Mother-in-law during all of this?). Yithro, it turns out, was, besides being a one-time advisor to Pharaoh, became a Ger (Proselyte, or Convert) after “having tried all other ‘religions’ and, finding them all false, became a Jew”. It is said that Moses, himself, taught him during the time that he was a shepherd for Yithro. And it is with the background of finding the truth by eliminating (all) the false, that Yithro approached life - even his new life as a Jew.
But what has this to do with his (strange?) message?

In an effort to use the “KISS” Principle, let’s see if we can winnow this down. Before Yithro gave suggestions on “Management Styles”, he became upset with Moses ‘sitting in judgment‘ over the problems of the Israelites all day long while the people stood and waited their turn. This was not a concern that these problems had to be addressed and the Moses was the arbiter - it was the fact, as Yithro saw it, of his sitting while the people stood. From the point-of-view that he brought to Judaism, his son-in-law was assuming an exalted position over the people. This did not seem to be in accord with what he had come to understand about Judaism. We know, from our study of Torah, that Moses was the “humblest of all men” and yet Yithro saw it in a different light. He had first been expecting to be ‘snubbed‘ by Moses when he came to visit with his daughter and grandsons, and now it seemed (to him) that Moses was placing himself above the others.

In the case of Yithro’s coming to Judaism, through the elimination of faulty concepts in other religions - a negative process, he was attuned to the false and the corrupt and thought that, “Now, here I am a Jew and I see my own son-in-law acting in (what he saw to be) an un-Jewish way.” For Yithro, he had yet to comprehend that - the terms of Hillel - it was necessary to come to an appreciation of the beauty of the positive precept of ‘Love your neighbor as yourself‘ rather than the ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to others.’

Going back to an earlier Parshat [VaYera], we read that “...G-d appeared to Abraham among the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent, in the heat of the day.” which is better translated as ‘he sat down’. [Notice the difference in form] Again, Rashi explains to us that Abraham naturally tried to stand in the presence of G-d, as we are encouraged to do in our shul when we read: Da lifney me ata omed - Know before whom you stand. HaShem, however, told him to sit: “You sit down, and I shall stand; and this will be a sign for your children that I will be standing in the assembly of judges, while they remain seated.” We are also told that he who loves someone does not care if the other is sitting while he is standing, even in those cases where this would be outside of the conventional norms. Therefore the perfection of the love that G-d has for Israel is beyond the normal demands of deference and respect. The judges would sit. Moses sat. And the love between them all would unite them. This was what Yithro did not know at the time but it was he, a stranger to the Jewish world, who attained it by logic, criticism and rejection (of the false) and who did not yet feel the intimate unity of the people; it took him, a relative outsider, to raise the criticism of Moses and this policy.

And yet, instinctively, he knew that had Moses not come out to greet him (his wife and his children) that there could be feelings among the Israelites that Moses would be showing disrespect toward them (all) and that they too would soon show disrespect for this non-Jewish woman and “her children”. So Yithro had the wisdom to request in no uncertain terms that is was, indeed Moses’ obligation to everyone to ‘come out’ to greet him (Yitro) and his family. No one would thereafter be able to say of Moses’ children; “What do you expect of them? They take after her!” The boys would be deemed her children but not Moses’.

So we find that “What is hateful to you, do not do to others.” is the minimum. We cannot discard that concept. Not even when you accept the concept that has deeper beauty; “You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This too, tells us about the acceptance that we are told to show the 'Stranger among us."
Shalom.

compare thought processes to previous post

Don't blame the West

The 'root causes' of Islamist terrorism do not lie in poverty or western imperialism, but in an age old conflict between Reason and Revelation

By Robert Sibley, Ottawa Citizen
January 3, 2011

During the last decade of Islamist terrorism, numerous commentators, particularly those on the left, have adopted a materialist approach to explain why some Muslims want to slaughter guests at hotels in Mumbai or detonate bombs at Christmas festivals in Sweden.

Terrorism, they argue, is rooted in poverty, frustration over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and memories of western imperialism. In other words, so the argument goes, the West itself is to blame for terrorism. If only the West would apologize, make reparations, abandon Israel, leave the Middle East and Afghanistan, all would be well. Or at least that's where the root-cause crowd's assumptions logically lead.

The problem with this materialist view of terrorism is that it largely misses the spiritual motivations that inform Islamist geo-politics. As political theorist Barry Cooper argues in his book, New Political Religions, or, An Analysis of Modern Terrorism, the Islamists, like the Nazis and Communists, are motivated more by a "disease of the spirit" than materialist aspirations. "When ordinary human beings see themselves as specially chosen by G-d, or even as gods themselves, they are not necessarily psychopaths, but they most definitely are spiritually disordered."

Cooper draws on Eric Voegelin, a 20th-century political philosopher who coined the term "pneumopathology" to account for the spiritual diseases of the modern world. Voegelin argued that some people -- politicians, intellectuals, journalists, for example -- prefer to see the world as a projection of their desires rather than comprehend its reality. Such fabulists effectively live in what Voegelin called a "second-order reality." If they acquire power they all-too-often pursue extreme measures -- genocide, gulags, crashing airplanes into buildings -- to transform the world to suit their fantasies of perfection.

In the case of the Islamists, they imagine Islam spreading across the globe and the establishment of a worldwide caliphate based on shariah law. They see themselves empowered by Allah to bring about this new world order by destroying a civilization they regard as spiritually empty. Thus, Islamism constitutes a political religion of apocalyptic proportions.

You don't have to look far to find hints of such second-order thinking. The New York Hall of Science is currently staging an exhibit titled "1001 Inventions" that purports to show that Islam enjoyed a Golden Age of scientific and intellectual accomplishment when Europe was wallowing in the Dark Ages. According to a New York Times reviewer, the exhibition's promoters claim Islam's cultural glories were later "misappropriated" by the West.

It is true that, between the seventh and 10th centuries, Islamic culture spread across North Africa and the Middle East -- prompting the building of libraries, universities and cities where science and philosophy were prized. Scholars, such as al-Zahrawi and al-Haytham, made significant contributions to medicine and physics. Philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Farabi absorbed Aristotle and Plato and, like the Greeks, tried to apply reason to the problems of Muslim society. But to deny that Muslim thinkers borrowed heavily from other cultures -- evidence, again, of second-ordering thinking -- is a distortion of historical reality. As the Times' reviewer puts it: "Major cultures of the first millennium (China, India, Byzantium) are mentioned only to affirm the weightier significance of Muslim contributions."

But then Islam's Golden Age was golden only in comparison to the endarkenment that descended on Western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century. According to some historians, the rise of Islam in the seventh century exacerbated Europe's "Dark Age." "Islam, far from being a force for enlightenment in the so-called Dark Age, was actually responsible for the destruction of the literate and urban civilization that we now call Classical," says John J. O'Neill, the author of Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization. The Muslim conquests of the Christian lands of the Middle East and North Africa in the seventh and eighth centuries were, he says, made much easier by the breakdown in law and order throughout the Mediterranean as the borders of the Roman Imperium receded. In this regard, the "1001 Inventions" exhibition is, perhaps, being disingenuous.

Worse, though, says the reviewer, is the exhibition's failure to account for the "long eclipse" of Islamic culture. Indeed, one of history's much-debated puzzles is why the Muslim world stagnated after its Golden Age, why the spirit of scientific inquiry and philosophical debate by and large faded from Islamic culture.

Blame the imams. In the 11th century, Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, a brilliant if tormented theologian, published The Incoherence of the Philosophers, effectively bringing to conclusion centuries of debate in the Muslim world about the primacy of reason versus that of revelation. Reason makes us question things, makes us doubtful and uncertain, al-Ghazali argued. He attacked philosophers who thought that humans could know the world by means of rational thought. Reason, he said, leads to despair. Only divine revelation, the word of G-d as revealed in the Koran, provides certain knowledge of how best to live. Human reason must submit to Allah's will.

A century later, another Muslim philosopher challenged al-Ghazali's views. In The Incoherence of the Incoherence, Ibn Rushd -- better known in the West as ‘Averroes’ -- argued that reason was G-d's gift to mankind and was to be used for the betterment of society. Ignorant theologians should not intrude on areas they don't understand. It was too late. The imams carried the day. Averroes' books were burned and he fled into exile. The voice of reason fell silent in courts of the caliphs and Muslim culture gradually ossified.

Some scholars argue that Islamist terrorism can be traced to this eclipse of reason. Unlike Christianity, which eventually found a way to balance the claims of Athens and Jerusalem, leaving it open to the scientific reasoning that re-emerged in the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Islam has never reconciled reason and revelation. This unwillingness to reconcile the human and the divine fosters the kind of spiritual pathologies that give birth to terrorism.

"Islamism is grounded in a spiritual pathology based upon a theological deformation that has produced a dysfunctional culture," argues political scientist Robert Reilly in a newly published book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. Mainstream Sunni Islam, which comprises the majority of the faithful in the Muslim world, "has shut the door to reality in a profound way." This, says Reilly, is the consequence of Islam's long suppression of reason in favor of religious dogmatism.

Reilly refers to the abandonment of scientific thinking as the "Dehellenization" of Islam. Islam was eventually dominated by those who thought like al-Ghazali. They held that the Koran contained Allah's direct speech. And, because Allah's will and action is unlimited, the Koran, as his eternal word, must apply to all times and places. There is no need to look elsewhere in responding to the human condition, regardless of changing circumstances. Since Allah is the first cause of everything, there is no need to look for secondary causes; that is to say, no need to use reason to understand nature's laws, and, therefore, no need for science.

Such a mindset, Reilly argues, forgoes many attributes Westerners regard as essential to the modern mind, particularly philosophical skepticism and scientific reasoning. "If one lives in a society that ascribes everything to first causes, one is not going to look around the world and try to figure out how it works or how to improve it," he writes. "The Middle East is poor because of a dysfunctional culture based upon a ‘deformed theology’, and unless it can be reformed at that level, economic engineering or the development of constitutional political order will not succeed."

Other political theorists argue that democracy cannot establish deep roots in a culture where human reason is not paramount because, in Barry Cooper's words, "the prerequisite of democracy is the respectability of reason." But without respect for reason there can be no notion of discovering natural laws. And without natural law, says Cooper, "there can be no constitutional political order by which human beings, using reason, create laws to govern themselves and act freely."

Such views, if valid, augur ill for the presence of Islam within the secular West. If radical Islam is, as Reilly contends, rooted in the suppression of reason, it is hard to see how even moderate Muslims can achieve a deep and wholesome attachment to western societies and their values. How can genuinely devout Muslims identify wholeheartedly with a modern secular society that denies the efficacy of their faith? And if they can't, what are they going to do about it?

The Islamists' answer, obviously, is that no accommodation is possible. Hence, they ultimately seek the transformation of the West to accommodate Islam. Chandra Muzaffar, a widely respected Malaysian Islamic scholar, writing in a 2006 book, The New Voices of Islam, captures this spiritual aspiration: "Islam and the post-Enlightenment secular West are diametrically opposed to one another. Muslims will then realize that unless they transform the secular world of the West, that vision of justice embodied in the Koran will never become a reality." The challenge for Islamists, obviously, is whether they can achieve that transformation better through demographic domination over the next few decades or through violence.

The challenge for Westerners (and other “Enlightened” Peoples), perhaps not so obviously, is whether they will awaken in time from their multicultural slumbers to protect their cultural heritage and avoid, possibly, a new dark age.

Robert Sibley is a senior writer with The Citizen.

Hey! Maybe a little light would help us see. Ya Think?

With the Aid of Lights Along our Path-

Last week I suggested a re-reading of the Misillat Yesharim (Lights Along The Way) by Rabbi Moshe Luzzatto.

Last week (in our STSG session) we discussed - or, rather, we approached the discussion of reading, and re-reading, and re-re-reading of Torah [which then invokes a study of, a learning about, a reflection upon and (Baruch HaShem) a comprehension of]. So, it is no surprise when we find that the first thing that Luzzatto tells us is: “...I write this book to remind (people) of that which they already knew... ...since (this) book contains little new information, there is no advantage in reading it only once, because the reader will not gain any new knowledge. The advantages of this book can result only from repeated readings, because that may remind people of those things that tend to be forgotten and a person can then set his heart to those obligations which one tends to overlook.” He continues to say that most people will spend an inordinate amount of time to learn about the subjects of which they aspire, e.g. math, natural science, engineering, auto mechanics (et. al.) and some will (also)devote their time and energies toward Torah and halachah; “However relatively few... will devote thought and study to perfecting their devotion to G-d; i.e. just what it means to love G-d, fear G-d*, to be close to G-d... this is because they do not consider these to be important(?) [subjects for scholarly inquiry].”

Now... here is something quite interesting and something on which Rabbi Abraham Twersky, M.D. makes commentary- the Ramchal says; “...since highly intelligent people spend their time with study of other subjects, the study of perfection of Divine service... is generally left to those who are not of keen intelligence...” WOW! Rabbi Twersky: “ (The) Ramchal is describing the situation as he saw it in his time (circa 1740 CE)... between Minchah and Maariv, the rabbi would learn Ein Yaakov (that non-halachic portion of the Talmud comprised of ethical content and incidents in the lives of the Talmudic authors) - or: lessons in conduct. Those attending the rabbi’s class were usually those of limited scholarship... (as) Apparently the “Scholars” would consider the study of Ein Yaakov as ‘not for them’." HMMM... It was commented that during the time of the “Inquisition”, when confronted with becoming a “Christian” of becoming dead... many of the “Scholars” could rationalize conversion while the ‘simple folk‘ went to the stake declaring Shema Yisrael.


Ramchal: “A person does not devote much thought to something to which he does not feel duty bound.”

By this simple statement we see that if we do not stop to reflect, as we discussed last week; ...that The Search For Truth takes effort and will. And man will only dig as deep as is convenient. The search for the truth (whole truth and nothing but...) is not a search that most are willing to undertake. It requires a passion. It has an urgency and a drive that pushes us though the uncomfortable areas of our lives in the search to find something... something that requires us to leave our comfort zone, to leave our chosen ideals and concepts.

So when we are confronted with a situation where we must leave our comfort zone - we must say that; “Perhaps this (kind of) study IS what I should involve myself in, even though it is difficult, even though it seems to be leading to someplace that I have previously assumed ‘I knew’ or someplace where I will have to leave my previous considerations behind.” This is an area that we all encounter from time-to-time, and not just within the area of Torah.

Just for one example: earlier physicians had to ‘deal’ with new concepts and techniques - the idea of germs was argued against by physicians for quite a while before they were confronted with the reality that they were wrong and had to leave their particular “comfort zone”.

Therefore it is of little difference when we are asked to leave that comfortable area of belief that we have long held (whatever that may be) - that women could not lead a service, or that “yes” Jews do believe in a Life after Death, or, or.... maybe we need to consider (just consider the possibility) that Rabbi Luzzatto does have something that we can learn. Just maybe we need to bring nothing but an open mind to a learning opportunity. Anyone who has spent more that an hour in front of a classroom will tell you that you frequently learn more from your pupils that you already knew! That does not mean that you need to teach in order to learn - but it wouldn’t hoit! I do not see my ‘job’ as coming along to a classroom situation and opening up the heads of the ‘students’ and ‘pouring in knowledge’. Any more that it is for me to sit in a classroom and have some other person ‘pour in the knowledge’ that s/he had previously had poured into their head.

We gotta think. We gotta have an open mind. We need to question. We really need to consider other possibilities. That is why it is so important to participate and to hear ‘the other side of the story’. Now if you accept that you don’t know - then you need to say to yourself: “Perhaps there was a teacher that lived 326 years ago that said something that is meaningful to me, today.” “Yah! Perhaps those dead rabbis were on the right track. Someplace I went wrong. Let me hear that again!” Just think about it. Maybe. Maybe, we can all learn something today.

* to: Stand in Awe and wonder of HaShem!