The Dark Side is now accepted as a legitimate part of Torah.

I try to grade institutions on a % basis.  That is-- I do not think any of them are perfect. But if I think they are above the 60% level. then I say they are worth supporting. And in fact I try to support any institution that I think is doing good, even if I do not agree with their theology. And I have been doing that for a long time. 
But if I think the Dark Side is using an institution as a front (or as a disguise), then the fact that the core is evil makes the whole thing evil. 

Religious teachers that belittle husbands do not get a passing grade. In fact a good deal of the religious world I consider to be a deceptive front for the Dark Side Sitra Achra. The Dark Side is now accepted as a legitimate part of Torah. It got in by means of sincere mystics. But after the Ari (Isaac Luria) all mysticism is from the Sitra Achra.

So though Reform and Conservative Judaism are  more lenient about Halacha (Law) but at least they are Kosher; as opposed to the religious world which has been taken over by the Sitra Achra.

Advaita Vedanta versus Maimonides

My basic feeling about the Advaita Vedanta is that it does not start out with obvious first principles. It wants to claim a strong thesis without proof and that thesis is by no means obvious. On the contrary, in Math, people start out with certain given axioms, but which are not counter intuitive. Rather axioms that seem obvious and almost do not even need to be stated. Like the shortest distance between two point is  straight line.


Besides that there are idolatry and Sitra achra [Dark Side] problems with Eastern Religions and all mysticism.The only thing I see as being a valid set of values is the Torah  system with no mysticism mixed in.
Mysticism is how the Sitra Achra managed to penetrate the Torah world
_______________________________________________
To this Brett Stevens answered to me:

Brett Stevens says:

11/05/2016 at 7:53 pm

My basic feeling about the Advaita Vedanta is that its does not start out with obvious first principles.

It starts with a vision, from which first principles are later implied throughout the documents.

As far as its thesis, idealism is it; it supports this with metaphor instead of conventionally structured argument.

This is probably the best introduction for it I can imagine:

http://www.amerika.org/texts/the-perennial-philosophy-aldous-huxley/

That, and Evola, maybe a bit of Schopenhauer.

______________________________________






That was the version of the book that I read many times over. I still have to say that I was not convinced. The closest I saw as an argument was Spinoza and even there I was not convinced. [He assumes nothing can affect a substance. That stacks the deck for his approach. But it is not a obvious first principle.] [On the other hand it clear substances can affect each other.]

Brett Stevens says:

11/06/2016 at 8:20 am

You would probably more want to read The Upanishads, but the point Huxley makes is that these ideas are not presented in philosophical format. They are merely descriptions and metaphors, like most religious writing. I found Spinoza convincing with a few caveats, so detoured to Kant. From there, Schopenhauer and from that, the Bhagavad-Gita.

Avraham:
I did a bit of the Upanishads and Sutras. But took a different path than you. From Spinoza to Maimonides, Kant,  and Schopenhauer.  I have great respect for Spinoza and I can understand why you would think he is true. I think it was a combination of things that took me on a different track. (1) Leibniz (2) my own critique on him based on my understanding of Substance based on Aristotle. From my  side of things it find it hard to imagine taking either the rationalists or the empiricists based on Kant's Critique. To me it seems there simply is no choice for anyone except to go with some school of thought that takes Kant into account. That means some school of German Idealism.

So I settled on the Kant school which seemed to make the most sense to me. You really have to combine it with Schopenhauer. You also need to be able to read through the chatter of later 20th century philosophical pseudo intellectuals.]
If I try to explain what I like about Kant it would probably go like this. I hate when stupid philosophers talk about science. I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs. Even the really smart ones like Edward Feser. The only one that did his homework is Kelley Ross and he shows very well how Kant's system works well with Quantum Mechanics. 

Torah values

I hold from Torah values very highly, but not from the religious people that claim to be following these values. The "world" of the religious I do not think reflects Torah values very well.


For example there is a lot of effort to make secular Jews religious, but no loyalty to these same Jews. That is an attempt is made to show great friendship ["love bombing"] in order to acquire their friendship, but no real friendship really exists. It is important not to pretend friendship where none exists. Especially this is so since the point of pretending to be friends is to take people from their real family and friends whom they can depend on an replace them with false friends on whom they can not depend.
This is not a minor problem, but permeates the entire religious world. It is the elephant in the room that everyone tries so hard to ignore.






It is hard to know how to deal with this problem--especially since I do believe very strongly in Torah values the Oral  and Written Law.
It is hard to know why the word that apparently claims to be following the holy Torah suffers from this kind of moral blind spot.
And to me this seems like  a major failing-not some minor flaw. 

What I personally conclude years ago is the religious world in fact has nothing to do with Torah and it does not reflect Torah values at all but rather reflects rituals that are exaggerated and not from Torah. 

The only places that I saw were more or less adhering to Torah values were Lithuanian kinds of Yeshiva s with the surrounding communities--that is yeshivas built and run on the principles of the Gra and Rav Shach.

Wiki leaked email: the voting machines are rigged to change Republican votes to Democratic votes.

 The Wiki leaked email between John Podesta and the brass at Smartronic discussing the rigging of machines at the direction of Soros. There is no "may" about this. We have already had multiple reports from Illinois, Texas etc of machines changing GOP votes to Dem votes AS THE VOTER WATCHES. And of course all these reports are blown off as "glitches".....apparently that's the new term the DNC and Media whores use for CHEATING.

Weiner should be up for the saint of the year award.

Weiner should be up for the saint of the year award.


No wonder he called the file "Insurance policy." He was aware of the danger of the Clintons and wanted to make sure what happened to anyone that crossed them did not happen to him.


........all 30,000 of the "missing" Hillary emails are on Weiner's laptop, plus hundreds of thousands more that were deliberately ditched and we never knew existed in the first place, evidencing not only lying about the content of the 30,000 emails but the existence of hundreds of thousands more?

What if among the authenticated email traffic is John Podesta saying, just days before the Clinton campaign was compelled to produce said material they they had to "dump those emails", apparently proving intent to obstruct justice?

What if all of the emails that came from big public cloud providers are provably, to a near-forensic standard, to be exactly as WikiLeaks has presented them and could not have been tampered with because those providers digitally sign every email that comes from them and those signatures all validate back against those cloud providers, and those emails are thus in fact already known to be authentic?

s63 d minor  s62 G major

Sometimes you see in Mozart he will extend a theme from four measures to five  of or some odd number. That is not teh same a a minuet where he will go to six measures. The fact is when Mozart does this it makes sense. So I have some defense for doing the same thing in s62.

But the Torah is not about spiritual experience.

The so called ‘New Age’ movement has been around for a long time now. (To be accurate, since the Garden of Eden). I did not realize the extent. 

 I myself was drawn to mystic goings-on of various sorts.

As I began to learn Gemara [Talmud], I was astonished by how much had changed during my years in the wilderness. 

 I have seen 'new age beliefs' and 'spirituality' from the inside. 

 They believe that those seeking ‘spirituality’ at Eastern Religion psychic fairs are going to the wrong place and should be coming to Torah for spiritual experience.

But the Torah is not about spiritual experience.

The Occult just got to be too much a part of how Torah i presented. [It might be the best idea to simply avoid that aspect for it seems to lead people almost automatically into the Sitra Achra Dark Side.]


[With no offence intended towards the Ari himself, still I think the whole mystic trip is a bad LSD trip.] My concern is with intention to get in contact with the spiritual realm comes evil spirits that trick and deceive and give powers from the Dark Side.


The trouble seems to be השחתת המידות destruction of good character traits when one gets involved. If good character was not an essential part of Torah then this would not matter. But it is. You can see this in the Sefer HaChinuch which brings in easy to understand form all of the 613 commandments of the Torah and good character counts for a lot of them. For example there are two separate commandments about אונאת ממון and אונאת דברים. Not to defraud someone in money and another one not to hurt another person by means of words.

I think it is best to allow the pseudo Torah mystic stuff fall off into oblivion. [You could possibly go back to the Zohar itself to find the beginnings of the problem.]