Smuggled Kindness

God is so kind that wants to give us even more than we deserve.

However, He's concerned that we'll feel ashamed if we receive what amounts to a free handout.

So to avoid shaming us, He sneaks it in along with what we already deserve.

~ Lubavitcher Rebbe

Of “How?” & “Why?”

One of my life’s loves is reconciling the thought pattern of Judaism with other systems of thought, such as science. Regardless of whether I am particularly good at it, I enjoy doing it and often enough I find that the seeming differences yield a deeper truth. It’s the soul in me, in the guise of a philosopher, at work.

I have recently encountered a fashionable idea which makes me feel uncomfortable. Maybe, one day I will be able to reconcile myself to it. But presently it leaves me in the cold, wondering. It’s the contemporary claim of certain religious thought leaders that religion is relegated to dealing with the “Why?” of life and science with the “How?” I am honestly surprised to see one of my favorite Rabbis among their ranks.

I agree that science can’t be expected to deal with the “Why?” of life and therefore, its real focus is exclusively on the “How?”. However, Judaism is different. It does not pigeonhole itself into dealing with only certain kinds of questions and not others. It’s my understanding that Judaism makes claims to be in the know concerning life’s “How?”

Consider that ...

• Based on the Talmud, Judaism contains an esoteric tradition called “The Workings of Creation”. It’s a secret society of select Torah sages who study a subject which is even deeper than Kabbalah, as we know it.
• Lurianic teachings about the tzimtzum, primordial contraction, and the subsequent unfolding of worlds/realms come off sounding more like a “How?” than a “Why?”.
• The Midrash teaches, “He gazed in His Torah and created the universe.” This statement bears the imagery of an architect referencing blueprints as a guide on "How?" to build a structure.
• On the surface, the Genesis story of creation mostly communicates on a “How?” level, even if only in general terms. Without recourse to commentaries there’s little mention of “Why?”
• A Torah sage of the past generation personally told me that, though he does not look there, he knows where to find all scientific information in the Torah.
• Rabbi Moshe Schatz’s “Sparks of the Hidden Light” has a lot to say about the “How?” of reality.
• The Lubavitcher Rebbe argued against elements of the scientific model expressing “How?” the universe and humanity emerged.

I don’t know for sure. However, I wonder whether pushing Judaism exclusively into the “Why?” camp isn’t an artificial contrivance to climb a high intellectual mountain, safe from the rising flood waters of science and contemporary secular intellectual currents. If this is the case, and I don’t know whether it is, then it rings hollow with apologetics.

All opposites have a higher convergence point. It’s part of the idea of Oneness. I look forward to the day humanity will discover how to answer all questions from the place where “How?” and “Why?” converge.

Afterthought (a few days later)…

On the surface level, Judaism mostly deals with "Why?" and science with "How?" This is true of Judaism’s public teachings, though it’s different for its inner esoteric teachings. There, the “Why?” is mixed with the “How?” 

The “Why?” and “How?” are in a male and female relationship with each other – as is the case of all interactive opposites. The public teachings of "Why?" do have a little bit of "How?" because each male must contain a bit of female and each female must contain a bit of male. However, that "How?" is really only to provide some context for the larger message of "Why?"

A century ago, Judaism and science were like 12 year olds to each other. 12 year olds typically see the opposite gender as "Yuck!" So, Judaism and science felt repulsed by each others’ presence.

Today, they're more like 16 year olds. They’re starting to consider each other fondly. If the trend smoothly progresses, tomorrow they'll likely be 18 year olds, ready to date in preparation for marriage. Then we may expect a total integration of Judaism and science as a single topic.

--------------------O-----------------

Fabric of Space-Time

A Single Fabric

Time contains,

  All events,

  

Space contains

  All objects.

Time is space,

  Space is time,

One fabric,

  A continuum.

When containers,

  Are one, identical,

Could the contents,

  Be identical too?

Can planets n’ stars,

  Be events imprinted on space,

N’ can history,

  Be objects imprinted in time’?

--------Q--------

There’s a long tradition of relating the passage of time to the movements of the heavenly bodies; planets, stars and constellations. Sometimes I have heard people go as far as to ascribe time itself to the movement of the heavenly bodies. On the face of it, it seems like they’re confusing the measuring devices of time with the experience of time. Why should the heavenly bodies be considered as anything more than just a giant natural clock / calendar? Just as humans experienced time before the invention of mechanized clocks and written calendars, so it’s expected that they should be able to experience of the passage of time without recourse to the heavenly bodies as well. Essentially, when it comes to the human experience of time what difference does it make whether or not measuring devices are referenced?

I tend to agree that on the surface it seems like people with such beliefs are confusing the experience of time with its measurements. However, I honestly wonder whether some other dynamic is occurring here as well; namely, a psycho-spiritual one. Perhaps they are responding to a subconscious intuition that, as absurd as it seems, it’s somehow true that the two are related. Albert Einstein taught that time and space is a single indistinguishable unit, a continuum, which he called, “space-time”.

The result is that what happens in space has to have a parallel in time and vice versa. It’s as simple as the mathematical principle that what happens on one side of the equation needs to also occur on the other side of the equation. Let’s say for instance that A = QR.  If we add 2 to A, then 2 also needs to be added to QR.

In light of this, about five or six years ago, I realized that the shape and size of the universe must somehow be profoundly linked to our experience of time and vice versa. If space were differently shaped or sized then somehow our experience of time would also be different. Presently, I don’t know “how”?  However, just based on the equation it somehow has to be.

Similarly, just recently it dawned on me that, large bodies in space need to have their parallel in time. This is especially so considering that they significantly displace and curve the fabric of space-time around themselves and they move on coordinated paths in relation to each other, setting off a series of gravitational waves. They and their movements must be the parallel of events manifest in time; except as manifest in space. Perhaps this idea does not exactly prove astrology. However, it certainly supports astrology by offering an underlying basis for why it would be reasonable for what occurs in space to have parallels in time.  The ancients may have understood how placement and movement in space aligns with events in time; as they’re identical realities. Even if their match up efforts may have led to some imperfect or inaccurate results, they were thinking along the right track.

On a different but related note, it seems to me that science assumes that the fabric of space-time is uniform throughout the universe. Why should continuity be confused with uniformity? Perhaps, the fabric is denser in certain regions and thinner in others. If we hadn’t known better, we might have assumed that the ocean is a uniform mass, just because on the surface it appears to be solidly continuous. However, careful examination will likely yield that ocean water varies from region to region.

Interestingly, the ancients divided the universe into concentric zones. Perhaps, there’s some truth to that idea or at least, to something like it.

I think it is wise for science to develop a discipline devoted to the study of the very fabric of space-time. It might tell us at least as much about our universe as the advanced telescopes do.

------------------------O----------------------

Temples of Flesh

In a sense, the first Holy Temple on earth was Adam and Eve; as God prefers Temples of flesh. Their exile from Eden was the very first destruction of a Temple on earth.

Ever since, the saga of humanity has been a protracted project to reconstruct the Temple that was Adam and Eve.

~ Zohar Chadash, Eichah

Space

It's more important to discover inner space than outer space.

Av

The Jewish month of "Av" is about relationships. This is a special month of the year. It's about hearing, deep hearing. It's the "Shema" affirmation prayer,  where we inwardly hear our own minds contemplate Your Oneness and by extension Your Infinity. We feel our connection with You, our Oneness in You and then pull away ever so slightly from that state to feel "love" with You; Your love, our love, the same love. We feel our relationship with You, with all others, with ourselves. It's the same relationship.

Can Your Infinity fit in our hearts, as some would claim? Does it matter? It only matters that I share love with You. In the experience of love one forgets levels. One forgets to bring along the measuring rod. One forgets what a measuring rod is or even what a measure is. I know not where Your kiss begins or mine ends. It's one continuous kiss.

This is what it's like to share love! Relationships may have and should have "Adar" moments,  giddy moments. But like the month of "Av", it's mostly serious business. It's commitment and work, but, also the very best of what it means to be human in every sense.

So, far from being frightened of "Av", I pray to embrace its gifts to build relationships, strong ones! Just like the high priest Aaron had. When we wholly accept the gifts, there are only blessings!

---------------O--------------

Jewish Transcendence

Jewish transcendence is,

  Like a fisherman at sea,

   Far, far from shore.

But only to bring back,

  The tastiest of fish,

    For his starving village. 

~~~~~O~~~~~

Soul & Mind

Since mind connects soul to body, it's not surprising that Maimonides considered Aristotle one step away from prophecy and Moses to be an even greater philosopher than Aristotle.

In the Maimonidean view, scholarly pursuits lead one to greater revelations from above, i.e. spiritual growth while occupying a body. And they lead one to a higher level of paradise; as one becomes more aligned with God, in the sense of His revelation as the universal mind.

However, it doesn't seem like Judaism, as a whole, has endorsed the Maimonidean view in this particular instance. It's true that Judaism has a strong scholarly component. However, for the most part, it does not view one’s spiritual growth or paradise as being entirely linked to intellectual mastery. There is room for other alternatives.

Consider the following story:

The Baal Shem Tov was shown in a dream the man who was destined to be his neighbor in paradise. Curiously, he set out to find the man and learn about him. When he finally met him, he discovered that he was facing a very tough, hefty butcher; the very opposite of the refined personality he imagined sharing his paradise.

In response to his utter surprise, the Baal Shem Tov asked the butcher a series of questions; hoping to tease out evidence that he was in fact a “hidden saint”. However, after exhausting all his questions, no such evidence was forthcoming. By saintly standards, the butcher proved to be rather ordinary.

The puzzled Baal Shem Tov struggled for fresh questions, until he was reduced to asking the obvious. In that society heft was associated with health. So, reminding someone about his or her weight was actually considered a compliment.

“Why are you so hefty?” the Baal Shem Tov inquired.

A proud smile broadly broke across the man’s face as he explained, “My father was a thin man, very thin. He was dragged from his home by the locals of another faith. They demanded that he worship an idol or face the stake. He chose to be burned alive at the stake to sanctify God’s Holy Name. However, he was so thin that when he burnt, he produced only a tiny, wispy flame. I fattened myself up, so that when they come for me, I will make a huge, roaring fire for God.”

Now, the Baal Shem Tov was satisfied. He had a legitimate basis to appreciate why this man was designated to be his neighbor in paradise.

This story demonstrates that mainstream Jewish thought does not necessarily link one’s spiritual growth or paradise as depending entirely on scholarly attainments. Clearly, the butcher was not a scholar in any serious sense of the word. He was considered an ordinary man who was tremendously devout in an extraordinary way.

There are several possibilities I could think of to explain why, broadly speaking, Judaism did not endorse the Maimonidean view as the only alternative to access spiritual growth and paradise.

    A) Who’s to say that every iota of scholarly information is true? Harboring a smattering of false notions among the true ones, may actually obstruct, rather than enlighten. To whatever extent the mind has been removed from harboring truth, it has been misaligned with the soul - whose whole essence is about truth. Under such circumstances there could be compromises in the mind’s ability to serve as a vessel to receive the illumination of the soul.

  

    B) One’s intellectual faculties can be swayed away from truth by one’s passions and urges. Regardless of claims to objectivity, personal bias can creep in. Therefore, a scholar whose passions and urges reign supreme may actually bear more falsehood than he or she is aware of. If weighed out in the net, such a mind may actually bear less “net truth” than the mind of a non-scholar.

    C) The logical faculties are just one part of the mind. There’s so much more to developing the mind than just scholarly pursuits. They include one’s morality, convictions, beliefs, sense of justice, free choice, practical planning, a sense of people, caring for others, spirituality, intuition, etc. As psychologists admit, there are many kinds of intelligence. Being scholarly is just one of them. So, one could have a mind which is very highly developed; just not necessarily in a scholarly way. This mind can actually serve as a very clear vessel for the illumination of the soul.

The latter notion, that the mind is a lot more than just the capacity for scholarship, is the reason I mainly identify with among the three listed above. The first two make sense to me as possibilities for consideration. I still have not worked out how sure I am about them. However, I feel comfortable enough with them to put them out there to be mused over. The third one, I find really compelling. I believe that the butcher had a certain kind of genius (though not scholarship). Otherwise, he wouldn't have been who he was.

Although, scholarship plays a large part in Judaism, Judaism is not just a religion of scholars or for scholars. Consequently, it makes sense that its system of spiritual growth and access to paradise would not be entirely dependent on scholarly attainments. There are other ways too!

--------------O---------------