12.9.17
Trust of the Dark Side?
What is בטחון של הסיטרא אחרא? Trust of the Dark Side? [Something mentioned by Reb Nachman, but not in any other books of Musar]. Is this a case when one imagines to himself that he is trusting in God, but in fact trusting in some organization [I.e. the system by which he gets the shiduch and kollel check each month].
Because of the possibility of self delusion, I think it is possible that a person might thinking that he is trusting in God, but in fact trusting in "the system."
[That is at least how some people talk. They say since they are super smart astronauts and the super holy, they deserve to be supported by the community. Trust in God seems to have nothing to do with almost any kollels I have ever seen or heard of. ]
[Too bad Reb Nachman did not go into more detail about what he meant by that tantalizing phrase.]
[There also seems to be a implicit claim of many yeshivas that they posses the knowledge and skill to make people wise and good. This type of claim I think deserves skepticism. The claims o the religious remind me of the opponents of Socrates who also claimed to be able to teach wisdom and virtue but in fact were buffoons.
One problem with the claim that people in kollel are astronauts is that that is irrelevant to the importance of learning Torah. The basic idea of learning Torah is for everyone equally. The is no more of a mitzvah for a smart person to learn than for a dumb person. The claim seems to be geared towards creating a kind of elite class of superior beings whom others are in this world only to serve. The other problem is that it does not seem accurate.
Astronauts after have to go through engineering and math courses in order to become pilots in the first place. To be in a kollel one has simply to be born into the right circles an know the right people an have the right friends. It has nothing to do with knowing how to learn Torah
Because of the possibility of self delusion, I think it is possible that a person might thinking that he is trusting in God, but in fact trusting in "the system."
[That is at least how some people talk. They say since they are super smart astronauts and the super holy, they deserve to be supported by the community. Trust in God seems to have nothing to do with almost any kollels I have ever seen or heard of. ]
[Too bad Reb Nachman did not go into more detail about what he meant by that tantalizing phrase.]
[There also seems to be a implicit claim of many yeshivas that they posses the knowledge and skill to make people wise and good. This type of claim I think deserves skepticism. The claims o the religious remind me of the opponents of Socrates who also claimed to be able to teach wisdom and virtue but in fact were buffoons.
One problem with the claim that people in kollel are astronauts is that that is irrelevant to the importance of learning Torah. The basic idea of learning Torah is for everyone equally. The is no more of a mitzvah for a smart person to learn than for a dumb person. The claim seems to be geared towards creating a kind of elite class of superior beings whom others are in this world only to serve. The other problem is that it does not seem accurate.
Astronauts after have to go through engineering and math courses in order to become pilots in the first place. To be in a kollel one has simply to be born into the right circles an know the right people an have the right friends. It has nothing to do with knowing how to learn Torah
11.9.17
Generational mistrust.
Generational mistrust. When youth no longer trust their elders. Someone came to my hospital room yesterday and played the violin. We all clapped when he was done. One fellow {Roman--or Roma for short} commented that no matter what he did, his own father always criticized him. He was never good enough.
I would not have thought anything of this if not for the fact that I noticed that Socrates dealt with the same problem [in Euthydemus]. Two adults that had come to Athens claimed to be able to teach to youth how to become wise and good. Their methods were more effective in created deep mistrust of adults in youth.
And I have seen myself a great deal of what causes the generation gap. Lying to youth and using them for one's own purposes.
Outside of this I wanted to mention what I think is the best approach. That is, to support what ever is good and to criticize whatever is bad.
[To know oneself what is good and bad is by learning Musar. Learning Musar does not actually make one good, but it does reveal objective morality.]
I think society's disparagement of parents causes some percentage of the problem--but not all. A lot depends on the behavior of the parents
I would not have thought anything of this if not for the fact that I noticed that Socrates dealt with the same problem [in Euthydemus]. Two adults that had come to Athens claimed to be able to teach to youth how to become wise and good. Their methods were more effective in created deep mistrust of adults in youth.
And I have seen myself a great deal of what causes the generation gap. Lying to youth and using them for one's own purposes.
Outside of this I wanted to mention what I think is the best approach. That is, to support what ever is good and to criticize whatever is bad.
[To know oneself what is good and bad is by learning Musar. Learning Musar does not actually make one good, but it does reveal objective morality.]
I think society's disparagement of parents causes some percentage of the problem--but not all. A lot depends on the behavior of the parents
10.9.17
Reason and Faith and outside books. ספרים חיצוניים
Outside books. ספרים חיצוניים The approach of the Rif and Rosh is these are books that explain the Torah in ways not based on the way the Chazal [the sages] explain the Torah. I wrote about this in short in my little book on Shas.
The issue comes up in Sanhedrin: These are the people that have no portion in the next world...R. Akiva added those who read "outside books."
The trouble that I see is that most books in the religious world explain the Torah not based on דרשות חז''ל the way the sages understood it.
But I have avoided this subject for the very fact that it to me is ambiguous. I have no idea how far to take this. In any case, I am allergic to all books in the religious world. But those are easy. The Gra already made this clear by his signature on the letter of excommunication. But how far to go with this?
After you get to yeshiva a lot of these books are considered OK. No one ever takes the Gra seriously expect the Silverman Yeshivas.
What I think the Chazal [Sages] were referring to were the books of the schools of Alexandria. You can see that basic approach in the books of Philo and you can also see what the Chazal thought was wrong.
It is not the synthesis of Torah with Plato but the way Philo was going about it.
The Rambam and Saadia Gaon had no problem making a synthesis between Reason and Faith based on Aristotle and the neo-Platonic School.
[The fact that Gedolai Litva did learn the books of Reb Nachman is not relevant to this since he was never in the category of the excommunication in the first place. ]
The issue comes up in Sanhedrin: These are the people that have no portion in the next world...R. Akiva added those who read "outside books."
The trouble that I see is that most books in the religious world explain the Torah not based on דרשות חז''ל the way the sages understood it.
But I have avoided this subject for the very fact that it to me is ambiguous. I have no idea how far to take this. In any case, I am allergic to all books in the religious world. But those are easy. The Gra already made this clear by his signature on the letter of excommunication. But how far to go with this?
After you get to yeshiva a lot of these books are considered OK. No one ever takes the Gra seriously expect the Silverman Yeshivas.
What I think the Chazal [Sages] were referring to were the books of the schools of Alexandria. You can see that basic approach in the books of Philo and you can also see what the Chazal thought was wrong.
It is not the synthesis of Torah with Plato but the way Philo was going about it.
The Rambam and Saadia Gaon had no problem making a synthesis between Reason and Faith based on Aristotle and the neo-Platonic School.
[The fact that Gedolai Litva did learn the books of Reb Nachman is not relevant to this since he was never in the category of the excommunication in the first place. ]
8.9.17
Devakut [attachment with God]
You can not make a scientific study of devakut [attachment with God]. But you can examine it.
The first time I was aware of this fact was when a friend in Safed offered to me a shiduch and I mentioned to her my experience in Safed of devukut. She mentioned that she had seen a study on this subject. [It probably was in Germany where she had been before that.]
I myself was not aware of this, and my education in high school never got up to Kant, and in yeshiva I had been discouraged from learning Kant. But if I had been aware of Kant, I might very well have been aware right at the beginning of how to deal with this subject. [Reason can not penetrate into the realm of the Ding An Sich--the thing in itself. ]
Later I had a chance to read a lot about Eastern cults which also gave me a certain perspective.
[I might mention there were people there that had powerful connection with the Dark Side which gave them awesome powers. The failing of the religious is that they think they are immune from this kind of thing because of their exactitude in rituals. From what I have seen the more exacting in rituals they are the more they get caught in this--because of the very fact that they think they are immune.]
An even when the religious are not in religious delusions at least they have the cult of personality--worship of deluded leaders. The best approach to avoid these problems in my opinion is to learn Torah in a Lithuanian type of yeshiva where both phenomena are discouraged (both religious delusions and the cult of personality).
I might as well mention right up front my basic conclusions. [To expand on this I would recommend doing the same readings that I did.]
(1) Devakut is desirable, and in fact one of the 613 mitzvot. [It is mentioned I think twice in Deuteronomy.] One place to see this also is in the Musar book by Isaac Blazer [a prime disiple of Reb Israel Salanter] who brings down the idea from a commentary on the first four chapters of the Rambam.
(2) It is far too easy to imagine one has devakut with God when in fact it is devekut of the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. I have seen this all the time. There is just too much religious delusion out there, but that does not mean that authentic devekut is impossible. [Reb Nachman actually mentions on a related note the idea of trust of the Sitra Achra that people mistake for real trust in God.]
(3) I believe the path to real devekut is through Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot--even though this learning does not always bring abut this result.
These are my simple conclusions without expanding on it. But at least I ought to mention that I consider it is one of my primary sins that I rejected devekut after about 7 years in Safed. I do not expect to make up for that mistake, but I do hope to bring about awareness of this important subject.
I am not saying that Litvak yeshivas are wrong for discouraging this. From what I have seen interest in spiritual enlightenment never leads to real enlightenment but delusions that just are well hidden until eventually they are revealed. I have never seen an exception to this. My own attachment with God never came because I was trying to get it. It was a total surprise. I only mean to bring out the fact that if one that has it, he ought to appreciate it.
[Further reading: I found Aurobindo and his treatment of the Intermediate Zone very insightful:
"For this intermediate zone is a region of half-truths - and that by itself would not matter, for there is no complete truth below the supermind; but the half-truth here is often so partial or else ambiguous in its application that it leaves a wide field for confusion, delusion and error. The sadhak thinks that he is no longer in the old small consciousness at all, because he feels in contact with something larger or more powerful, and yet the old consciousness is still there, not really abolished. He feels the control or influence of some Power, Being or Force greater than himself, aspires to be its instrument and thinks he has got rid of ego; but this delusion of egolessness often covers an exaggerated ego. Ideas seize upon him and drive his mind which are only partially true and by over-confident misapplication are turned into falsehoods; this vitiates the movements of the consciousness and opens the door to delusion. Suggestions are made, sometimes of a romantic character, which flatter the importance of the sadhak or are agreeable to his wishes and he accepts them without examination or discriminating control. Even what is true, is so exalted or extended beyond its true pitch and limit and measure that it becomes the parent of error. This is a zone which many sadhaks have to cross, in which many wander for a long time and out of which a great many never emerge."
He is referring to people that supposed themselves perfect gurus but I can think of others to whom this characterization would apply.
The first time I was aware of this fact was when a friend in Safed offered to me a shiduch and I mentioned to her my experience in Safed of devukut. She mentioned that she had seen a study on this subject. [It probably was in Germany where she had been before that.]
I myself was not aware of this, and my education in high school never got up to Kant, and in yeshiva I had been discouraged from learning Kant. But if I had been aware of Kant, I might very well have been aware right at the beginning of how to deal with this subject. [Reason can not penetrate into the realm of the Ding An Sich--the thing in itself. ]
Later I had a chance to read a lot about Eastern cults which also gave me a certain perspective.
[I might mention there were people there that had powerful connection with the Dark Side which gave them awesome powers. The failing of the religious is that they think they are immune from this kind of thing because of their exactitude in rituals. From what I have seen the more exacting in rituals they are the more they get caught in this--because of the very fact that they think they are immune.]
An even when the religious are not in religious delusions at least they have the cult of personality--worship of deluded leaders. The best approach to avoid these problems in my opinion is to learn Torah in a Lithuanian type of yeshiva where both phenomena are discouraged (both religious delusions and the cult of personality).
I might as well mention right up front my basic conclusions. [To expand on this I would recommend doing the same readings that I did.]
(1) Devakut is desirable, and in fact one of the 613 mitzvot. [It is mentioned I think twice in Deuteronomy.] One place to see this also is in the Musar book by Isaac Blazer [a prime disiple of Reb Israel Salanter] who brings down the idea from a commentary on the first four chapters of the Rambam.
(2) It is far too easy to imagine one has devakut with God when in fact it is devekut of the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. I have seen this all the time. There is just too much religious delusion out there, but that does not mean that authentic devekut is impossible. [Reb Nachman actually mentions on a related note the idea of trust of the Sitra Achra that people mistake for real trust in God.]
(3) I believe the path to real devekut is through Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot--even though this learning does not always bring abut this result.
These are my simple conclusions without expanding on it. But at least I ought to mention that I consider it is one of my primary sins that I rejected devekut after about 7 years in Safed. I do not expect to make up for that mistake, but I do hope to bring about awareness of this important subject.
I am not saying that Litvak yeshivas are wrong for discouraging this. From what I have seen interest in spiritual enlightenment never leads to real enlightenment but delusions that just are well hidden until eventually they are revealed. I have never seen an exception to this. My own attachment with God never came because I was trying to get it. It was a total surprise. I only mean to bring out the fact that if one that has it, he ought to appreciate it.
[Further reading: I found Aurobindo and his treatment of the Intermediate Zone very insightful:
"For this intermediate zone is a region of half-truths - and that by itself would not matter, for there is no complete truth below the supermind; but the half-truth here is often so partial or else ambiguous in its application that it leaves a wide field for confusion, delusion and error. The sadhak thinks that he is no longer in the old small consciousness at all, because he feels in contact with something larger or more powerful, and yet the old consciousness is still there, not really abolished. He feels the control or influence of some Power, Being or Force greater than himself, aspires to be its instrument and thinks he has got rid of ego; but this delusion of egolessness often covers an exaggerated ego. Ideas seize upon him and drive his mind which are only partially true and by over-confident misapplication are turned into falsehoods; this vitiates the movements of the consciousness and opens the door to delusion. Suggestions are made, sometimes of a romantic character, which flatter the importance of the sadhak or are agreeable to his wishes and he accepts them without examination or discriminating control. Even what is true, is so exalted or extended beyond its true pitch and limit and measure that it becomes the parent of error. This is a zone which many sadhaks have to cross, in which many wander for a long time and out of which a great many never emerge."
He is referring to people that supposed themselves perfect gurus but I can think of others to whom this characterization would apply.
Litvak yeshiva
When I was in Shar Yashuv [Rav Freifeld's yeshiva in Far Rockaway] and in the Mir in Brooklyn I did not want to hear about secular learning. This was in spite of the fact that Rav Freifeld told to me to take classes in Brooklyn College.
This was as you can see not a matter of my belief system, but rather I felt I had found something amazing, awesome, powerful and full of holiness in the Litvak {Lithuanian} Yeshiva.
I had already had a full stomach of secular learning for the past 12 years from kindergarten until 12th grade.
But this was more of a matter of finding a kind of synthesis between learning Torah and keeping Torah. These two things were tightly bonded in the Litvak Yeshiva environment.
[I have not been recently a strong advocate of the Litvak yeshiva in recent years because of later experiences as I have hinted to a few times. But I have not gone into these later experiences for a few reasons. The main thing is: "Abuse does not cancel use." The fact that people can misuse an institution does not invalidate its proper use.]
This applies to institutions as much as anything else. Maybe even more.
Nowadays the religious world is against the secular learning not from any kind of involvement in Torah. The religious world sadlly gives a great living example of everything wrong with religious fanaticism. The religious world has external rituals but not the essence. [But they do have the "cult of personality" which is not really any different than any other groups that do the same.]
[I should mention that after the few years at the Mir I did not do much learning Torah. So to me it is clear that without those few concentrated years of learning Torah I would not have gotten very far.
The fact is the Enlightenment was an attack on religious values. But was motivated by much of the kind of behavior I have seen in the religious world. So what I try to do is to keep a sense of balance.
[This aspect of balance in keeping Torah I saw in my parents, and in Musar. But Musar is generally misinterpreted to mean religious fanaticism. But then I also saw it in the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam and that book is harder for people to willfully misinterpret.
Reb Freifeld I should mention stressed lots of review. To a large degree I have to agree with this.It i just hard to find the right balance. Recently in learning gemara and Rav Shach I have found review to be the only way to make progress. And now I am seeing this in Physics also.
I have to mention that Rav Freifeld held so strongly about review that even for beginners like myself he was very firm about it. Ten times review for anything you learned. That was his "thing."
I should mention that in spite of all I have written, one must keep in mind to have loyalty to Torah, --not towards any yeshiva. If a yeshiva helps provide an environment where you can learn, then by all means support it. But if it is just a private country club [as so many are] for some supposedly elite group, then do not go near it.
[I did not ignore Rav Freifeld. It as rare to get to ten times review but I tried. And recently I would take one basic page of Gemara or chapter of Rav Shach and just read it through every day --which is not exactly what Rav Freifeld was saying to do but I have found this to be workable. [My learning partner David Bronson was extremely stubborn to stay on every word in Tosphot until we would get it-as you can see from my notes I wrote on the subjects in Bava Metzia we learned together.
This was as you can see not a matter of my belief system, but rather I felt I had found something amazing, awesome, powerful and full of holiness in the Litvak {Lithuanian} Yeshiva.
I had already had a full stomach of secular learning for the past 12 years from kindergarten until 12th grade.
But this was more of a matter of finding a kind of synthesis between learning Torah and keeping Torah. These two things were tightly bonded in the Litvak Yeshiva environment.
[I have not been recently a strong advocate of the Litvak yeshiva in recent years because of later experiences as I have hinted to a few times. But I have not gone into these later experiences for a few reasons. The main thing is: "Abuse does not cancel use." The fact that people can misuse an institution does not invalidate its proper use.]
This applies to institutions as much as anything else. Maybe even more.
Nowadays the religious world is against the secular learning not from any kind of involvement in Torah. The religious world sadlly gives a great living example of everything wrong with religious fanaticism. The religious world has external rituals but not the essence. [But they do have the "cult of personality" which is not really any different than any other groups that do the same.]
[I should mention that after the few years at the Mir I did not do much learning Torah. So to me it is clear that without those few concentrated years of learning Torah I would not have gotten very far.
The fact is the Enlightenment was an attack on religious values. But was motivated by much of the kind of behavior I have seen in the religious world. So what I try to do is to keep a sense of balance.
[This aspect of balance in keeping Torah I saw in my parents, and in Musar. But Musar is generally misinterpreted to mean religious fanaticism. But then I also saw it in the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam and that book is harder for people to willfully misinterpret.
Reb Freifeld I should mention stressed lots of review. To a large degree I have to agree with this.It i just hard to find the right balance. Recently in learning gemara and Rav Shach I have found review to be the only way to make progress. And now I am seeing this in Physics also.
I have to mention that Rav Freifeld held so strongly about review that even for beginners like myself he was very firm about it. Ten times review for anything you learned. That was his "thing."
I should mention that in spite of all I have written, one must keep in mind to have loyalty to Torah, --not towards any yeshiva. If a yeshiva helps provide an environment where you can learn, then by all means support it. But if it is just a private country club [as so many are] for some supposedly elite group, then do not go near it.
[I did not ignore Rav Freifeld. It as rare to get to ten times review but I tried. And recently I would take one basic page of Gemara or chapter of Rav Shach and just read it through every day --which is not exactly what Rav Freifeld was saying to do but I have found this to be workable. [My learning partner David Bronson was extremely stubborn to stay on every word in Tosphot until we would get it-as you can see from my notes I wrote on the subjects in Bava Metzia we learned together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)