So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar

I can see that in Torah also there us the legal aspect Gemara, and the spiritual.

The thing about the spiritual aspect is that  it has the highest danger of delusion. And in Torah there were books like the Sefer Hayetzira and mystics. The problem that the Sitra Achra, the Dark Side,  that gets mixed up in this area. And when it comes to "spiritual" things, it is hard to now what is from the realm of holiness and what is from the Dark Side. 

You can have great saints [tzadikim] that serve God through personal  fasting and prayer, like the Ari, the Gra. Rav Nahman, still the fact that they believed in the Zohar means there is a certain element that gets mixed up with them. After all the Zohar can not be from R. Shimon ben Yochai since on every few pages is contained the phrase עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה--"although" in the time of R Shimon ben Yochai was אף על פי או אף על גב. The  עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה is a medieval invention by the family of translators --the Ibn Tibon family.  So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar that gets mixed up with the good. Most people involved in mysticism are not spiritual but delusional

John Locke and Montesquieu, the American system of Justice

I wish I could share with others the feeling of being astounded realizing that the American system of Justice  which finds some middle ground between freedom and equality--which are after all exact opposites. [If you force everyone to be equal then no-one is free. If everyone is free then immediately no one is equal because some fail and some excel.] 

I wonder from where this system comes from? I know the founding fathers studied John Locke and Montesquieu and the Roman republic and the Athenian Democracy. But I also began to see that it was highly based on the English system. But I could see little in philosophy that could result in such a system. It seemed piecemeal. Ad Hoc. Rather than based on John Locke, the English system was explained by John Locke after it was already in place especially after the Glorious Revolution.

[Plato certainly never recommended such a system. Rather his system resembled many aspects of Sparta but with most of the brutality taken out. The Roman Republic  had  two central bodies of authority, the  the Plebeians and the Senate, [as reflected in the sign of Rome SPQR ] . But that was just as Ad Hoc. The people were given  authority and the tribunes in order to stop the disintegration of Rome. There was no theory behind it. There was no theory behind the Magna Carta nor the Provisions of Oxford. Only after the fact, did it become clear that this form of government meant freedom and human flourishing.

one is not supposed to worship an intermediate.

We know one is not supposed to worship an intermediate. And the Rambam considers that to be the main prohibition of idolatry. So it is easy nowadays to see the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I can understand that at the time of the herem/ excommunication it was not clear to most people what the problem was. So most people ignored the herem (excommunication) that the Gra signed. But\ nowadays it is abundantly clear.

[Even Rav Nahman mentions this important principle in the LeM vol I perek 62. One is not supposed  to worship an intermediate. So one could ask on why Rav Nahman seems to contradict himself in terms of the need to a "tzadik." I am not sure how to answer this, but I still feel that Rav Nahman himself was not included in the herem, so I feel more or less at ease in learning what is possible from his writings.

Attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. The higher naivety is in between. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold.

 In the study of history there is something called "the higher naivety". There are two other attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. )Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. (as some say about Homer. They say you can not learn anything from Homer about the age before the Greek States.] Like chariots. Some thought they were an anachronism. But later it turned out from archeology that there were chariots in the time of the war on Troy. ) The higher naivety is in between. It is to believe unless one can not. What can make something not believable? Self contradictions. Or external evidence. [You might see some of Hegel here about synthesis.]

Similar in philosophy there is an attitude to try to take apart. Then there is the sort of reading called "charity"--that is if a great philosopher writes something that does not seem to make sense, to try to make sense of it and say he meant something that is more sensible. (Michael Huemer is with "He meant what he said'' view.))Then there is "He meant what he said" but to try to find some way of making sense of it.

This is  how many other issues can be approached. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold. But just right.  In Rav Nahman' writings there are amazing insights and other things that are less than believable. {Maybe he himself was saying these in a half humorous fashion, or perhaps not well understood. So you throw out everything? I say not. You leave the great insights and ignore what seems less well thought out. {It is characteristic of Western thought to be "either or." It is all right or all wrong.. I tend to be in the middle. Some is right and some needs to be ignored.

Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents."

 One thing you can notice in Rav Nahman of Breslov [i.e. his books] is the idea that there is always an ''ietza" some sort of advice that can help for every situation. Though he never actually says this in so many words, still the idea is implicit in everything he writes.

How to find the right bit of advice that can help you is of course the problem.

For example the Tikun Klali [saying the ten psalms to correct sexual sin] is actually called this by name: "the general correction". [In reference to the LeM vol I perek 19]

But when Rav Nahman uses the idea of correction he does not mean it just in terms of sin but actually correction of problems. 

And I tend to think in these terms myself after learning Rav Nahman's books. I can see his point.

[Sefer HaMidot especially.]

It is well known that he held that "Hitbodadut" is a general practice that can help. That is--to talk to God as one talks with a friend--in one's own language. No rituals or formulas of prayer.

I wanted especially to mention one bit of advice that actually is in a mishna כל המקבל עליו עול תורה מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול רך ארץ For anyone that accepts on himself the yoke of Torah, there is removed from him the yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the earth. 

That is to say: I have noticed something about the Litvak path of learning Gemara Rashi and Tosphot along with Musar that fulfill this idea of Rav Nahman. This path of straight Torah I have noticed tends to have this aspect to it of removing from one many of the other kinds of worries and difficulties that people encounter. {I do not learn Torah all day as I should because I was  kicked our of every beit midrash where I sat down to learn. At first it was the Lakewood kollel in LA where they told my wife to get rid of me because because I was learning Torah without getting paid. Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents." So I have found the major obstacle to learning Torah is the hypocrisy of those that claim to be doing so for its own sake, not for money. There is a temptation to discount the value of Torah because of this> I tend to say instead that Torah is great and holy, but people that use Torah to make money and dress religiously to show how holy they are are obstacles to true Torah.  

 

 z51 D minor

z50

z48

See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar", which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript.

 I know that people have an inherent curiosity about the nature of reality. They might look at philosophy and find word puzzles. Or they might look at the Zohar, and find that it is a highly problematic source of information. [note 1]

Even if they want to look at Physics, they find that layman's books are often worse than useless. They do not know how to get to the real thing.

For this reason I have often mentioned that learning Physics is possible for everyone. No one has to be a genius. What scares people off is the intimating system of tests. And these tests are important on one hand --to know who really knows -- as opposed to those who imagine that they know. But the downside of tests is people with inherent curiosity, but not much talent get discouraged.

I hope to show that Physics and Math are available to everyone by the idea in tractate Shabat page 63 לעלם ליגמר אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר Always one  finish (the whole book at least once) and then go back and explain it -even though he forgets, and even though he does not know what he is saying.)

[note 1] See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar," which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript. [He was never clear how it got into is possession.] So when a great sage from Israel arrived in Spain on a visit, people asked him to go and speak with De Leon and find out from where this book came from. This was Isaac from Aco. At that time deLeon was not in his hometown and Isaac of Aco went to see him. When he asked DeLeon, De Leon said, "I have the original manuscript at home and when I get there I will show you, or may God strike me dead!" Sadly enough, God struck him dead before he got back home. But Isaac of Aco went anyway and asked his wife about it and offered to her a very large sum of money to show him the manuscript. She swore to him that there was no such thing. She observed her husband sitting in his room and writing it "from his head" (that is the phrase she used to describe it.)

Of course it is clear that he had written a copy from himself in order to make extra copies from. That is how when people came to ask for the same page that someone else had bought, deLeon could write out that same page word from word.

And Rav Yaakov Emden made a study of this subject, and decided that some parts were probably based on ancient sources. 

I might mention that the עם כל דא ["although"] phrase in the Zohar bothers me. In the time of the Mishna and Gemara one could say although by אף על פי or  אף על גב. But during the Middle Ages it was noticed that these phrase are extremely awkward. So the Ibn Tibon family came up with a better way עם כל זה while עם כל דא is the translation into Aramaic. So the Zohar was written during the Middles Ages. QED