There are cults which are really bad -- even though they are founded on a saint or tzadik. This is the reason I have not written an essay today.
[I want to mention in reference to my essay yesterday that I think the Torah [the set of the Five Books of Moses] is not porous. I know every Jewish group looks on the Torah as being able to absorb any world view the want to impose on it --in my view the Torah is not porous. Rather it has a very specific world view ]
I consider the tzadikim of Chasidim to be in what is called the intermediate zone which is high above the trans-personal zone but still not the same thing as total enlightenment.
I consider the general chasidic movement however to be basically based on people that only reached the transpersonal zone.
I am a bit rushed but in plain English this means that following most chasidic cults leads one into the Dark Side.
The reason I as a philosopher am discussing these issues is that basically I hold from the Kant school of thought that Carl Jung was a part of.
The areas in which i think that breslov is wrong and are are: Pantheism, so called Zniut and actually many other things
However i admit that I don't consider chasidut to be of the degree of authority that breslov gives it.In this case i think every person should and must create his own world view based on the Torah and philosophy and science and Logic and reason and especially his or her own parents.
With the emphasis in breslov on the cultic features that define any cult one would be almost tempted to say that chasidut is not any different than any cult. [one feature is that ''so and so was the greatest such and such that every lived.'' When you encounter this philosophy in any group you are definitely dealing with a cult.]
[I want to mention in reference to my essay yesterday that I think the Torah [the set of the Five Books of Moses] is not porous. I know every Jewish group looks on the Torah as being able to absorb any world view the want to impose on it --in my view the Torah is not porous. Rather it has a very specific world view ]
I consider the tzadikim of Chasidim to be in what is called the intermediate zone which is high above the trans-personal zone but still not the same thing as total enlightenment.
I consider the general chasidic movement however to be basically based on people that only reached the transpersonal zone.
I am a bit rushed but in plain English this means that following most chasidic cults leads one into the Dark Side.
The reason I as a philosopher am discussing these issues is that basically I hold from the Kant school of thought that Carl Jung was a part of.
The areas in which i think that breslov is wrong and are are: Pantheism, so called Zniut and actually many other things
However i admit that I don't consider chasidut to be of the degree of authority that breslov gives it.In this case i think every person should and must create his own world view based on the Torah and philosophy and science and Logic and reason and especially his or her own parents.
With the emphasis in breslov on the cultic features that define any cult one would be almost tempted to say that chasidut is not any different than any cult. [one feature is that ''so and so was the greatest such and such that every lived.'' When you encounter this philosophy in any group you are definitely dealing with a cult.]
