There is an interesting story recorded in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 102b Yalkut). Rabbi Ashi, one of the two who compiled the entire Babylonian Talmud, was teaching his students about the kings of the First Temple period who, because of their iniquities, were denied a portion in the world to come". At the end of his lesson he told his students “tomorrow we learn about our 'comrade' (chaver) King Manasseh". That night the king appeared to Rabbi Ashi and exclaimed angrily who are you to call me "comrade", do you even know the right place to cut the bread after making a blessing? The Rabbi responded no. The king then told him "it is the place where it finishes baking first" (the ends?). The Rabbi was taken aback, and asked how is it possible that someone as knowledgeable as you worshiped pagan idols? The King responded "had you been in our generation, you would have picked up the bottom of you robes to run there” (i.e. to serve the idols). The next day the Rabbi began the lesson "and now we will learn about our "master" (Rabbenu) King Manasseh.
While one would be hard pressed to find people who worshipped Molech (Middle eastern deity which, as the greatest sacrifice, required that your baby child be placed on the metal hands and the hollow idol would be filled with fire heating the hands until the child was burnt to death, meanwhile the priests would drum to cover up the shrieks of the baby) or Bal (the idol of the Sun), there is certainly pagan worship all around us.
Where? Let me explain.
The underlying difference between polytheism and monotheism:
But first we need to explore how pagan worship differs from monotheistic worship.
The former is premised on the belief that there is no singular force controlling this world. Instead there are a number of governing forces each of which controls elements of our existence. For example "mother nature", human innovation, zodiacs, etc.
Some who believed/believe this, argue that there was One all powerful G-d but that G-d had removed himself after creation, for whatever reason, from day to day administration of this world. The idols where thus deserving of devotion. At the core of this belief is that there is no one unifying force governing existence -polytheism.
On the other side is Monotheism which argues that there is one G-d and nothing else. G-d then created forces of nature that served as mediums for his divine infinite light. This is an analogous to the sun shining through stained glass windows. The same light differs depending on the color of the window. But the color and the window would be meaningless without the singular light shining through. In other words G-d created finite windows -the sun, trees, fire etc.- that color his infinite light in a certain way, heat, food, air etc. so as to allow the existence of the finite, and to provide for the finite. But these colored windows require the constant administration of G-d's light in order for them to fulfill their purpose and to even exist. Thus G-d is intimately involved with every detail of existence, from the leaf falling off the tree to the sinking of the South Korean navy vessel (for more on this please see posts on divine providence and choice, as well as posts concerning the soul).
King Manasseh may have referred to a specific desire that we, like Rav Ashi, cannot comprehend. Still the underlying difference between polytheism and monotheism can be explored in a contemporary light. Just as there exists a contemporary form of polytheism, that you and I may be serving at this very moment.
The point is that that anything that detracts from the belief in G-d's unity and absolute providence is a form of idol, and one who believes in this force can be termed a polytheist.
Money for example, if seen as anything more than a vehicle for divine blessing or tool, can be deemed an idol. Specifically if is seen as a great or the greatest ends to achieving. In other words that money has inherent value and "gives" power (as opposed to out window analogy)). Pride and human innovation, is another common form of polytheism –if one believes that they created or achieved by themselves, they are in essence rejecting that they are in fact a window –a cog, if you will, in the larger organism that we call the universe.
If the belief in the popularity/importance of idols is anything like the belief in the popularity/importance in money today, is it any wonder that King Manasseh was enticed by the pagan idols of his day? This may explain the wise king’s admonition of Rav Ashi.
A common mistake:
If we place pagan worship in this light it seems less insidious. It’s one thing to sacrifice your children to idols of stone and copper, it is another to pursue personal success and fulfillment. In other words it seems that the real evil of idol worship has passed, and plays a more positive role in society -the pursuit of happiness or material possessions. One can go so far and declare that this pagan drive that sees money as a real force, amongst many in this world, is at the heart of capitalism.
True many are discovering that, like the idols of old, money does not have any innate power, and does not bring real happiness -only temporary elation. Non-the-less the mistake of attributing power to money just seems, at worst, greedy and individualistic. So why not pagan worship?
The implications of the above conclusion:
It goes back to Abraham the first monotheist. Abraham, the first Jew, taught not the belief in Judaism, but the belief in one G-d and the 7 Universal laws (AKA, the Seven Noahide laws These laws are do not kill, steal, belief in one G-d, set up courts of justice, do not commit adultery, do not be cruel to animals, and do not use/curse G-d's name). While many may know about these laws, here is an interesting fact. Maimonides, the great philosopher and Rabbi, explains that one can only fulfill the seven universal laws if they accept that they come from G-d.
I hope you are asking,
"why should that matter, who cares as long as they are followed for rational/moral reasons" (as Hitchens and co. would indignantly exclaim)? The answer is clear, if we use rational as the foundation for not killing, then what stops an angry man with a mustache from writing a book rationalizing the murder of millions of Jews and others. In other words by not accepting the belief that the seven laws must be followed without exception, i.e. because an unseen force said so, we leave a proverbial loop hole for the continued murder, war, and depravity (think the man/boy love association of America [NAMBLA], seeking to rationalize then legalize pedophilia).
Abraham introduced the one potential cure for all war and violence, belief in the One immutable power.
This perspective asserts that the danger of polytheism does not lie in a specific kind of worship that can be measured on s subjective scale of good (money) and bad (sacrificing children). Rather it points to the danger of attributing inherent power to any finite creation, because that attribution undermines the belief in the unity of the one higher force. Abraham understood and foresaw the ability of that higher force to be a source for universal laws of good, that are beyond human rational and therefore equally applicable to all, and was/is a prerequisite for world peace.
Monotheism is the foundation of the unifying factor, without it we cannot discover that all of humanity, all of the world, is really one. It is high time that the "kings" amongst us considered this.
PS: I do not refer here to eastern beliefs, 1. because I know very little about them. 2. The little I do know seems to indicate a belief in a underlying cause that affects everything, i.e. providence.
Showing posts with label Unity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unity. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
To Divide and Conquer with Elena Kagan! Paranoia or reality?
Obama recently nominated, Elena Kagan, a Jewish gay women, to replace Justice Paul Stevens on the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Stevens served as the leader of the so called progressive wing of the SCOTUS. Stevens was also the only Protestant serving on a court otherwise dominated by minorities, five Catholics and two Jews.
Ones racial/religious affiliation has been thee factor in nomination decisions of the past 60 years, and is key to understanding the evolved method of choosing candidates for the Supreme Court. Today’s Supreme Court already reflects a skewered demographic. Sotomayor, who just happens to be Latino, was seen as part of an effort to demographically rebalance the court. Ostensibly her nomination, established the vision of the Obama administration vis-a-vis the SCOTUS -a Jews nomination runs counter to this vision. It is now very likely that for the first time in American history SCOTUS will be without a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) representing the majority religion and demographic in this country.
One would think that politically expediency is as play. Thus like in the case of Sotomayor nomination, the race/religion of the nominated would galvanize the voting base of that community in support of the nominator. Nominating Sotomayor made political sense; if you factor in our unseen immigrant population, Latinos are the largest minority in America. On the other hand the relevant strength of the Jewish voting public is relatively shrinking. Always a single digit minority the American-Jewish community does wield disproportionate political-power, but not so much as to compel a voter-hungry politician to disregard 50 percent of the real population. Moreover, Ruth Berta Ginsberg already represents the Jewish community.
Even though some speculate the Ginsberg is on her way out, it doesn’t justify a Jewish pick over a Protestant, even for a couple of months. What then is behind the Obama administrations reasoning?
The first and most simplistic explanation is that this is somehow tied to the recent gaff between Washington and Jerusalem which has spurred the administration to affirm its commitment to Israel via commitment to the Jewish community. It is even possible, though highly unlikely, that all this is just talk. This talk is intended to both strengthen Jewish support for the administration, which could then in actuality nominate a Protestant.
(Never mind that this is a flawed, but popular, conception of the relationship between Jews in America and their support for Israel. American-Jewish support for Israel is not intended to be at the expense of American success, on the contrary. Ignoring the Protestant majority undermines unity, which undermines America’s core strength. That is not good for America and therefore it is not good for Israel. In realty the American-Jewish community has every incentive to see America succeed. It is this blessed country that gave us opportunity, as it does all. Jews support Israel because, for amongst other reasons, a strong Israel is good for America. But we do not expect or want to ever see international politics intrude in something as important and private as the SCOTUS nomination process).
Still even the mere talk of a Jewish nominee, simply makes no sense. Clearly the court needs to represent the breadth of America society, but the majority should not be ignored even in conversation.
Another simplistic explanation is that Obama wants to assuage the far left and address the dearth of a gay representative on the court. This interpretation is more congruent with the administrations past behavior. Just as Sotomayor was chosen because she represented an unrepresented minority on the court, Latinos, so to should does this nomine.
The coarsest of perspectives, is that Kagan is an old Obama crony –Kagan served as dean of Harvard laws school, and taught at Chicago law. I mention this only for educational purposes, as it is clearly a likely coincidence.
Yet another reason offered is that Kagan has a flexible ideology. In other words when it comes to expanding executive power Kagan
“defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress” http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
On the other hand
“Kagan's record on social issues will likely be perfectly satisfactory, even pleasing, to most progressives. She is, by all appearances, solidly pro-choice and in favor of gay equality”. http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
The result is an easy confirmation, in a time when everything Obama attempts is challenged to the end. Conservatives will find it easy to support an individual who espouses the same views that underpinned Bush 2 conceptions of broad executive powers. At the same time Progressives will support her based on her social-progressive views.
Still do any or all of these explanations trump the need to have 50 percent of our population represented on SCOTUS? Is it really impossible to find a gay WASP, with credentials? Would not the addition of the WASP element engender an even greater promise of bi-partisanship?
Another way of understanding this enigmatic move, is to ask what does Obama gain with this nomination?
Of course this question is premised on the notion that a president looks for some degree of extrinsic reward in any major action undertaken.
Kagans views on major issues like the Obama administration in general are clouded in a disturbing degree of ambiguity. This makes the lack of a plausible motivation behind Obama choice all the more disturbing.
What we can be sure of is that if a Protestant is not chosen whoever is chosen along with their community, will attract the hidden ire of large segment of the population.
I don’t know if this a paranoid conclusion. At the same time to think that the Obama inner circle over looked these questions is equally delusional. Considering Obama’s roots it is not too far off, to divide and conquer our country and use an individual from a certain community to do it?! Paranoia or reality? (UPDATE ITS ALREADY STARTING http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/pat-buchanan-too-many-jew_n_576948.html,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/the-big-lie-about-the-fcc_b_576094.html )
Ones racial/religious affiliation has been thee factor in nomination decisions of the past 60 years, and is key to understanding the evolved method of choosing candidates for the Supreme Court. Today’s Supreme Court already reflects a skewered demographic. Sotomayor, who just happens to be Latino, was seen as part of an effort to demographically rebalance the court. Ostensibly her nomination, established the vision of the Obama administration vis-a-vis the SCOTUS -a Jews nomination runs counter to this vision. It is now very likely that for the first time in American history SCOTUS will be without a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) representing the majority religion and demographic in this country.
One would think that politically expediency is as play. Thus like in the case of Sotomayor nomination, the race/religion of the nominated would galvanize the voting base of that community in support of the nominator. Nominating Sotomayor made political sense; if you factor in our unseen immigrant population, Latinos are the largest minority in America. On the other hand the relevant strength of the Jewish voting public is relatively shrinking. Always a single digit minority the American-Jewish community does wield disproportionate political-power, but not so much as to compel a voter-hungry politician to disregard 50 percent of the real population. Moreover, Ruth Berta Ginsberg already represents the Jewish community.
Even though some speculate the Ginsberg is on her way out, it doesn’t justify a Jewish pick over a Protestant, even for a couple of months. What then is behind the Obama administrations reasoning?
The first and most simplistic explanation is that this is somehow tied to the recent gaff between Washington and Jerusalem which has spurred the administration to affirm its commitment to Israel via commitment to the Jewish community. It is even possible, though highly unlikely, that all this is just talk. This talk is intended to both strengthen Jewish support for the administration, which could then in actuality nominate a Protestant.
(Never mind that this is a flawed, but popular, conception of the relationship between Jews in America and their support for Israel. American-Jewish support for Israel is not intended to be at the expense of American success, on the contrary. Ignoring the Protestant majority undermines unity, which undermines America’s core strength. That is not good for America and therefore it is not good for Israel. In realty the American-Jewish community has every incentive to see America succeed. It is this blessed country that gave us opportunity, as it does all. Jews support Israel because, for amongst other reasons, a strong Israel is good for America. But we do not expect or want to ever see international politics intrude in something as important and private as the SCOTUS nomination process).
Still even the mere talk of a Jewish nominee, simply makes no sense. Clearly the court needs to represent the breadth of America society, but the majority should not be ignored even in conversation.
Another simplistic explanation is that Obama wants to assuage the far left and address the dearth of a gay representative on the court. This interpretation is more congruent with the administrations past behavior. Just as Sotomayor was chosen because she represented an unrepresented minority on the court, Latinos, so to should does this nomine.
The coarsest of perspectives, is that Kagan is an old Obama crony –Kagan served as dean of Harvard laws school, and taught at Chicago law. I mention this only for educational purposes, as it is clearly a likely coincidence.
Yet another reason offered is that Kagan has a flexible ideology. In other words when it comes to expanding executive power Kagan
“defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress” http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
On the other hand
“Kagan's record on social issues will likely be perfectly satisfactory, even pleasing, to most progressives. She is, by all appearances, solidly pro-choice and in favor of gay equality”. http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
The result is an easy confirmation, in a time when everything Obama attempts is challenged to the end. Conservatives will find it easy to support an individual who espouses the same views that underpinned Bush 2 conceptions of broad executive powers. At the same time Progressives will support her based on her social-progressive views.
Still do any or all of these explanations trump the need to have 50 percent of our population represented on SCOTUS? Is it really impossible to find a gay WASP, with credentials? Would not the addition of the WASP element engender an even greater promise of bi-partisanship?
Another way of understanding this enigmatic move, is to ask what does Obama gain with this nomination?
Of course this question is premised on the notion that a president looks for some degree of extrinsic reward in any major action undertaken.
Kagans views on major issues like the Obama administration in general are clouded in a disturbing degree of ambiguity. This makes the lack of a plausible motivation behind Obama choice all the more disturbing.
What we can be sure of is that if a Protestant is not chosen whoever is chosen along with their community, will attract the hidden ire of large segment of the population.
I don’t know if this a paranoid conclusion. At the same time to think that the Obama inner circle over looked these questions is equally delusional. Considering Obama’s roots it is not too far off, to divide and conquer our country and use an individual from a certain community to do it?! Paranoia or reality? (UPDATE ITS ALREADY STARTING http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/pat-buchanan-too-many-jew_n_576948.html,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/the-big-lie-about-the-fcc_b_576094.html )
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Unifying Factor: Trance, the “Magic Eye”, and Recognizing the One
Some of the people I know just don’t understand what I see in trance. To them it is a jumble of sounds created for the consumer of drugs. I myself used to feel this way. Then one night some friends from my building invited me to a Paul Van Dyke festival in Central Park. I went, and since then I have understood the method of trance.
Now when I try to convey my transformative experience I employ the magic eye analogy. You know those annoying “pictures” which seem to be a jumble of colors and shapes. Look closer! Don’t you see it? Do you see it? Do you see the statue, its right in front of you! Then exasperated you attempt to refocus your strained eyes uncrossing them, going back to a visual reality that comes naturally.
Of course for some, after a while, they “get it”. From that point on it becomes obvious, a natural trance.
Every religion and culture, Confucius, Moses, and the Sufi, ramble on about this one all encompassing consciousness, an idea that if meditated on either by spinning oneself around, not thinking about thinking , or really thinking, reveals an obvious truth. The truth being that we are really 1.
The real question, then, is how do we access this awareness? (I tried crossing my eyes while dancing in a state ecstasy.)
On the other hand if one is not aware of trance or the magic eye picture then they can never know the answer, because they don’t know that there’s a question.
What do these “one” people see? Where is the evidence?
I wonder if the Unifying Factor can be found by being aware that there is a common denominator in everything. After all if one must experience trance in order to appreciate it and stare at the magic eye to see, then to find something that is everything is a matter of just being awake.
Now when I try to convey my transformative experience I employ the magic eye analogy. You know those annoying “pictures” which seem to be a jumble of colors and shapes. Look closer! Don’t you see it? Do you see it? Do you see the statue, its right in front of you! Then exasperated you attempt to refocus your strained eyes uncrossing them, going back to a visual reality that comes naturally.
Of course for some, after a while, they “get it”. From that point on it becomes obvious, a natural trance.
Every religion and culture, Confucius, Moses, and the Sufi, ramble on about this one all encompassing consciousness, an idea that if meditated on either by spinning oneself around, not thinking about thinking , or really thinking, reveals an obvious truth. The truth being that we are really 1.
The real question, then, is how do we access this awareness? (I tried crossing my eyes while dancing in a state ecstasy.)
On the other hand if one is not aware of trance or the magic eye picture then they can never know the answer, because they don’t know that there’s a question.
What do these “one” people see? Where is the evidence?
I wonder if the Unifying Factor can be found by being aware that there is a common denominator in everything. After all if one must experience trance in order to appreciate it and stare at the magic eye to see, then to find something that is everything is a matter of just being awake.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Unifying Factor: The Hand that Chopped off the Foot
The recent UN convention was enthralled with the notion that we all must fight global warming. It is seen by many as one of the few issues where there is international consensus. This is not to say that there is equal consensus in the method of solution, or the extent of sovereign responsibility. In fact critics argue that the lack of consensus reaches deep into and partially stems from an epidemic of incoherency emerging from the scientific community. However, when it comes down to the realities of what is occurring -what some objectively minded individuals would claim are “naked facts” there is no debate. The global environment is changing (some would argue that it is not warming), no nation or scientist disputes the shrinking North Pole ice cap. At this level, there is singular international agreement. This is evident from the endless stream of head-of-states declaring their support and national initiatives to fight global warming. Russia, China, America, and Europe agree!
What then does this extraordinary providence portend? Will its potential disappear in the guise of empty words, or will nations act on the global threat? Conversely, can nations achieve their objectives by an uncoordinated response; do national borders mean anything to airborne carbon emissions? It would seem that we are either doomed to failure (whatever that may be) or have a chance of success, depending on international consensus leading to absolute international cooperation. International regulations, significant investment, and even technology sharing, are all required for this to work. It is highly questionable as to whether an institution as polarized as the UN can succeed in such an important sphere when it often does not in regards to less important matters. At the very least this is a threat that no nation is immune from, and potentially poses a danger that is catastrophic to all nations.
It is a strong argument for globalization. Indeed one can expect that if the global changes continue at their present course the international community will be forced to think in more global terms. How this will affect the move to more global perspectives is left to the imagination; however we should not forget that the current economic downturn reflects real global integration. That is, globalization is a modern evolution just as global warming is seen by many scientists as a natural occurrence, one that is inevitable. Thus the question itself evolves from the relationship between calls for globalization and climate change, to whether the global community will accept the inevitable.
Is the split in America between those who believe in divine destiny and the objective, and those who are skeptical and accept subjectivity, reflected in their positions on global warming? Can it be that those who desire to control their destiny refuse the possibility that they are not the cause of global warming? This question may give credence to the argument that global warming is a natural trend, and offer real insight into the subtle undercurrent that is once again evident in American politics.
What if the unity that is required in the face of global warming is nature telling us unify or die. Perhaps global warming in not real but the need to recognize that we are one body is. After all who ever heard of a hand chopping off a foot?
What then does this extraordinary providence portend? Will its potential disappear in the guise of empty words, or will nations act on the global threat? Conversely, can nations achieve their objectives by an uncoordinated response; do national borders mean anything to airborne carbon emissions? It would seem that we are either doomed to failure (whatever that may be) or have a chance of success, depending on international consensus leading to absolute international cooperation. International regulations, significant investment, and even technology sharing, are all required for this to work. It is highly questionable as to whether an institution as polarized as the UN can succeed in such an important sphere when it often does not in regards to less important matters. At the very least this is a threat that no nation is immune from, and potentially poses a danger that is catastrophic to all nations.
It is a strong argument for globalization. Indeed one can expect that if the global changes continue at their present course the international community will be forced to think in more global terms. How this will affect the move to more global perspectives is left to the imagination; however we should not forget that the current economic downturn reflects real global integration. That is, globalization is a modern evolution just as global warming is seen by many scientists as a natural occurrence, one that is inevitable. Thus the question itself evolves from the relationship between calls for globalization and climate change, to whether the global community will accept the inevitable.
Is the split in America between those who believe in divine destiny and the objective, and those who are skeptical and accept subjectivity, reflected in their positions on global warming? Can it be that those who desire to control their destiny refuse the possibility that they are not the cause of global warming? This question may give credence to the argument that global warming is a natural trend, and offer real insight into the subtle undercurrent that is once again evident in American politics.
What if the unity that is required in the face of global warming is nature telling us unify or die. Perhaps global warming in not real but the need to recognize that we are one body is. After all who ever heard of a hand chopping off a foot?
The Unifying Factor: Does One Equal Infinte
What do the big bang theory, conventional religion, and the human body have in common?
They all started with the notion of one. One large piece of exploding matter, one infallible entity, and one drop of semen.
The question you many have is so what? So what if they all have a common singular beginning?
Is it that the painting reflects the artist? So that we come from one drop of semen, because nature began in one moment with one source, and is that source the one infinite being?
Then again if the painting does reflect the painter and the painter is ultimately infinite, should his or her work not also be infinite?
In other words, is the fact that we are finite evidence that our source is also finite, or that our source can’t be infinite?
Another question: how do we know whether we are finite or not?
True our body needs to eat but do we as an existing atomic structure need to eat? Once we die our body is still there, albeit decomposing, but our body needs neither sleep nor food, shelter nor family, sex nor air! Maybe we, in our entirety, reflect in some ways the infinite.
Or when we die we return to the one that we began as, one matter, dirt.
Is it that the same experiences that makes us feel finite, life and consciousness, also prevent us from truly experiencing the one infinite that is at the heart of everything?
Is the unifying factor that we all come from the same source and it is our consciousness, our physical existence, that precludes the obvious? What if we are aware that this oneness is the infinite source and if so is it interchangeable with the term infinite?
They all started with the notion of one. One large piece of exploding matter, one infallible entity, and one drop of semen.
The question you many have is so what? So what if they all have a common singular beginning?
Is it that the painting reflects the artist? So that we come from one drop of semen, because nature began in one moment with one source, and is that source the one infinite being?
Then again if the painting does reflect the painter and the painter is ultimately infinite, should his or her work not also be infinite?
In other words, is the fact that we are finite evidence that our source is also finite, or that our source can’t be infinite?
Another question: how do we know whether we are finite or not?
True our body needs to eat but do we as an existing atomic structure need to eat? Once we die our body is still there, albeit decomposing, but our body needs neither sleep nor food, shelter nor family, sex nor air! Maybe we, in our entirety, reflect in some ways the infinite.
Or when we die we return to the one that we began as, one matter, dirt.
Is it that the same experiences that makes us feel finite, life and consciousness, also prevent us from truly experiencing the one infinite that is at the heart of everything?
Is the unifying factor that we all come from the same source and it is our consciousness, our physical existence, that precludes the obvious? What if we are aware that this oneness is the infinite source and if so is it interchangeable with the term infinite?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
