Buddhism.

My son came to help me during this period when I am recovering from breaking my leg. He has with him some books on modern Buddhism. And that reminded me that different systems of thought have different ideals about what is the proper way to live.

Certainly gaining "higher consciousness" does not seem like a Torah ideal. But still the Buddha had some pretty good ideas: the four noble truths and the eight-fold way.[In short: Life is suffering and the solution is to cease desiring and stop ignorance.]
What makes it especially interesting is the fact that he seems to have found in that group people he gets along with and can relate to.

Though the way it is presented in the West is far from the original ideas of Buddha, still some important elements remain. In particular the fact that he grasped something about the nature of the Divine which goes beyond human understanding.


[The Four-Fold Negation and is a fundamental Buddhist philosophical principle that deals with attempts to characterize Nirvân.a or ultimate reality:  we cannot either affirm or deny anything about it.]

[In Lithuanian yeshivas (based on the Gra) learning Torah is considered as the prime ideal. This is in fact due to the aspect that it does get one to the Infinite Light (אור אין סןף) and for me it seems hard to distinguish this from the Buddha idea of "Higher consciousness or enlightenment"]

[Nowadays I have a slight modification of the Litvak ideal. While the Litvak ideal is to learn the entire Oral and Written Law, my own approach is to  do that-- but add the two things of the Rambam: Physics and Metaphysics. And to do all this fast. That is to say the words and to go on.  ]
Also I should mention I do not have any sefer, but if I did have a Villna Shas I would first and foremost have an in-depth session..[That is, to do the same  page over and over again for  few weeks]. That is what I mentioned before to have an in depth session and also a fast session. At this point with limited time I would spend my time on Gemara to be in depth. Faster sessions I would have in other subjects.]

music file u18

u-18 mp3  same piece in midi   u18 nwc

Learning and reading is not always of benefit.

"Who knows what else is out there?" Sapolsky. [In terms of mind control parasites like Toxo-plasmosis.]

Lots of times in what one reads or hears there is some hidden unit of social information [meme] that changes dramatically how one thinks about the world he lives in and thus that changes how he acts.

Learning and reading is not always of benefit. Sometimes depending on what one reads. Learning can be really damaging.

This is brought in the Mishna [of R. Yehuda HaNasi] אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא: הקורא בספרים חיצוניים

"These are they who have no portion in the next world:.. One who reads "outside" books."

  According to the Rif and Rosh this means the exact opposite of what most people think it means.
People think it that if they read just Jewish religious books, that is OK.

  The Rif and Rosh say just the opposite. They explain"Outside books" means books that supposedly explain the Torah but not in the way the sages did. That means almost all religious books nowadays are "outside books," because they explain the Torah but not in the way the sages of the Mishna and Gemara did so.

I am only saying this because I take this personally very seriously. In the religious world, there is little that I consider kosher at all. The best is obviously the great Litvak yeshivas: Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir-but that does not stop the dark side from trying to gain entrance into these places.

I have no objection to learning wisdom from all sources. But that is not what most religious books are about.They are mainly abut finding some dark side doctrine that appeals to them and then presenting it as authentic Torah.

[Thus when it comes to Torah I am careful  in what I read. And most of the religious stuff out there I will not come within ten feet of.]

race is real.

I have thought for a long time that race is real. This might have come from my parents. I recall once going on a skiing vacation that the issue of race was brought up, and I heard my mother say some comment which indicated to me that she did not think that all races were the same. I forget the comment, but the idea was mainly that black people are not necessarily as talented as white people. I do not know why that was a surprise to me. Perhaps I was myself being indoctrinated by the public school system without my being aware of it.

If you do not have something nice to say--do not say anything.

I tried to impress upon myself the importance of not giving rebuke for a few years. I would repeat to myself the statement of Reb Nachman's  אע''פ שתוכחה היא דבר גדולה ומוטל על כל אדם להוכיח את חבירו כשרואה בו דבר שאינו הגון, אע''פ כן לאו כל אדם ראוי להוכיח

"Even though rebuke is a great thing and it is an obligation on every person to rebuke their friend when they see them acting in a way that is not proper, still not every person is fit to be able to give rebuke. As R. Akiva said "I would be surprised if there could be found even one person in this generation who is fit criticize..'"

The Shelah brings this up and the Gra also but in a different sense. There is a sense just saying what the proper thing is. This is brought up in the אבן שלמה which is  a small book of sayings of the Gra.

The whole issue starts with the fact that rebuke is in fact one of the 613 commandments to the Rambam (and I think also all of those who counted the mitzvot like the Smag and Semak.].

It is significant that Reb Nachman only said one Torah lesson in Uman and this statement of his is the beginning of that Torah lesson. It is obvious to me that he thought of this fact (not to rebuke) as being of prime importance--way beyond how it sounds to us. To me and probably to most people it just does not seem like a big deal. But clearly to him, this was the one and only principle he wanted his last days on earth to be about.

Fast learning

Fast reading I found helpful in terms of learning.--Especially for difficult subjects. The difficult thing is to find some middle ground between fast learning and in-depth learning. I also think that there is an emotional aspect to learning. That is that one needs an emotional commitment.

One place I was learning at divided the day into slow in depth learning in the morning and fast learning in the afternoon and I have long thought that that combination makes the most sense.
That was at the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY.

Before the Mir, I had been in Shar Yashuv and there Reb Freifeld, Rav Naphtali Yeager and Motti Freifeld all emphasized in depth learning.

[So the fact that there I would do the Gemara and each Tosphot about twice and then go on was way too fast for their taste. Still some time later, I have begun to see the wisdom of their approach. I am sure that if I had not been exposed to real in-depth learning when I was in my teen age years, that I would not have been able to pick it up later. So I can see why Litvak yeshivas do emphasize this kind of (in-depth) learning. But I also think it needs to be balanced with fast learning.]





I have known people that could learn fast and comprehend. Shimon Buso and others. But I think the benefit of fast learning is usually not visible right away.

Maimonides and his synthesis between Faith and Reason

I have not done enough work on Maimonides to say much. Some of the main points were already brought up by Dr Kelley Ross and Sunwell that he is an arch type Kant Friesian. That is with the source of knowledge of universals being from non intuitive immediate knowledge. My personal question at this point is how to deal with the differences between Hegel and Kant and where to place Maimonides in regard to their differences. But the Middle Ages opens up a whole new range of possibilities in this regard. What I mean is the differences between Aquinas and Scotus also invites thought in regard to Maimonides.What was he thinking in terms of Human Freedom? Was he more like Aquinas or Scotus? There are plenty of mysteries about Maimonides that still require thought.
The main things I find important about Maimonides are his synthesis between Faith and Reason [which was shared by most other great people during the Middle Ages]. But it is his particular approach which especially fascinates me. An approach that I am still puzzled by and also enthralled with.