Showing posts with label Anthony de Mello. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthony de Mello. Show all posts

Friday, July 16, 2021

Tishah b’Av 5781: An Approach to the Blasphemy in Eichah and Kinnos

This week's Torah content is sponsored by the Reznik family in dedication to the loving memory of Silvia Tanzer (Sora Hesha bas Chaim Moshe) and Irving Tanzer (Yisroel ben Yechezkel).

Click here for a one-page printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Doom Blade, by Matthew G. Lewis



Tishah b'Av 5781: An Approach to the Blasphemy in Eichah and Kinnos

“[Hashem] has drawn back His right hand from before the enemy” (Eichah 2:3) “[Hashem] has bent His bow like an enemy, with His right hand set like a tormentor” (ibid. 2:4) “My Lord was like an enemy” (ibid. 2:5)

First Hashem is described as withdrawing His protective right hand, allowing the enemy to attack. Then He is depicted as taking up arms and joining our enemy in its assault. Finally, Hashem, Himself, is identified as our enemy. What insight do these pesukim offer? What is the significance of this progression?

The answer is that this is actually a regression. The first pasuk is the accurate perspective: when we turn away from Hashem, He withdraws His protection, leaving us vulnerable to our enemies. The second pasuk reflects a warped view of Hashem, in which He is characterized as committing treason against His own people. The third pasuk is the worst distortion of them all, in which Hashem is the enemy of the Jews.

Why would Eichah cater to distorted portrayals of Hashem? The same may be asked about the kinnos (liturgical lamentations), which are replete with harsh, inappropriate, even blasphemous statements of this nature. How are we to make sense of such statements? What are we to think when reciting them?

When we suffer a horrific catastrophe – whether the destruction of the Beis ha’Mikdash, or the Holocaust, or even a personal tragedy – there are parts of us which feel that Hashem is like a malicious enemy. This is false, “for He does not afflict maliciously, nor cause the hearts of men to suffer” (ibid. 3:33). It is tempting to think that knowledge alone is the solution – that we can simply supplant falsehood with truth. This approach will not succeed. If we neglect to address these misguided parts of ourselves on their own terms, we will succeed only in driving them underground, where they will continue to affect our minds and hearts in an even more insidious manner. Instead, we must acknowledge that we have these parts of ourselves. We must give expression to them, allowing them to say what they think and feel what they feel. Only when they feel seen and heard will they be receptive to truth. Only then can the healing begin.


This reminds me of this fellow in London after the war. He’s sitting with a parcel wrapped in brown paper in his lap; it’s a big, heavy object. The bus conductor comes up to him and says, “What do you have on your lap there?” And the man says, “This is an unexploded bomb. We dug it out of the garden and I’m taking it to the police station.” The conductor says, “You don’t want to carry that on your lap. Put it under the seat.”

The distorted conceptions of Hashem carried by our inner parts are like bombs we carry on our laps. To uncritically embrace these false views as true would be to detonate the bombs. We must seek knowledge of Hashem, led by our tzelem Elokim (intellect) and guided by Torah. But that is not enough. If we dismiss, deny, or “exile” the parts of ourselves that harbor these false views of Hashem, all we’re doing is taking the unexploded bombs and putting them under our seats. This is worse than keeping them on our laps, insofar as we convince ourselves that we’ve eliminated the threat when all we’ve done is hidden it. All it takes is for the bus to be jostled in the wrong way, and these hidden bombs will explode.

There is a third option: to acknowledge the bombs we are carrying, to accept our precarious state, and from that place of awareness, apply our knowledge to diffuse them. This is the intent of Eichah and kinnos: to make us aware of and feel the distorted perspectives we harbor, to accept and feel the precarious metaphysical danger we are in, and from that place of visceral intellectual recognition, to help us “unburden” these misguided parts of ourselves through knowledge and teshuvah and the light of truth.
___________________________________________________________________________________
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle/Chase QuickPay and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast""The Stoic Jew" Podcast"Rambam Bekius" Podcast"Machshavah Lab" Podcast"The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

The Sin of Refusing to Look at Oneself

This week's Torah content is sponsored by the Reznik family in dedication to the loving memory of Silvia Tanzer (Sora Hesha bas Chaim Moshe) and Irving Tanzer (Yisroel ben Yechezkel).

Click here for a one-page printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version. 

Artwork: Agonizing Remorse, by Robbie Trevino

The Sin of Refusing to Look at Oneself






















The first of the Neviim Acharonim (Later Prophets) to prophesy about the destruction of Bayis Rishon (the First Temple) and Galus Bavel (the Babylonian exile) was Yeshayahu, in the first prophecy he received:

[Hashem] said: Go and say to this people, "You surely listen, but you do not understand; you surely see, but you do not know. The heart of this people has become fat, its ears have become heavy, its eyes have become covered over – lest it see with its eyes and hear with its ears and understand with its heart, and it return (i.e. engage in teshuvah) and be healed.” (Yeshayahu 6:9-10)

Radak explains:

You listen with your ears to the words of the neviim who rebuke you, but you do not understand; you see the wonders of the Creator but you do not know. In other words, you do not apply your mind, and you do not pay attention to Me. You intentionally fatten your heart and make your ears heavy and cover over your eyes so that you do not hear, and do not see, and do not understand, and do not know, for you desire neither teshuvah nor "healing," which is the forgiveness after teshuvah.

Yeshayahu does not focus on the people’s sinfulness per se. Rather, he rebukes them for their refusal to look at themselves with a critical mind, since doing so would prompt them to do teshuvah.

There are two ways to understand the intent of this message. The first is to assume that the navi is primarily concerned with the sinfulness of the people, and he is simply pointing out that their impediment to doing teshuvah and being “healed” is their refusal to look, listen, and know themselves. The second reading is that the navi is primarily concerned with the people’s resistance to the type of self-knowledge which leads to teshuvah, and the oblique reference to their sinfulness is merely the backdrop of this focus.

I believe that the second understanding is correct. The strongest evidence for this reading is that no sin is explicitly identified other than the refusal to look, listen, and know themselves. This sin is expanded upon by Anthony de Mello in Awareness: The Perils and Opportunities of Reality:

The first thing I want you to understand, if you really want to wake up, is that you don't want to wake up. The first step to waking up is to be honest enough to admit to yourself that you don't like it … We don't want to look, because if we do, we may change. We don't want to look. If you look, you lose control of the life that you are so precariously holding together. And so in order to wake up, the one thing you need the most is not energy, or strength, or youthfulness, or even great intelligence. The one thing you need most of all is the readiness to learn something new. The chances that you will wake up are in direct proportion to the amount of truth you can take without running away. How much are you ready to take? How much of everything you've held dear are you ready to have shattered, without running away? How ready are you to think of something unfamiliar?

We often resist doing teshuvah because we are attached to a particular behavior and don’t want to stop. But there is another reason why we may resist doing teshuvah: because we are terrified of seeing who we are in the present, or of who we may become in the future if we allow ourselves to let go of the life and the narrative about ourselves that we so desperately and precariously cling to.
___________________________________________________________________________________
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle/Chase QuickPay and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast""The Stoic Jew" Podcast"Rambam Bekius" Podcast"Machshavah Lab" Podcast"The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here

Thursday, July 8, 2021

Sameach b'Chelko as Unconditional Happiness

Click here for a one-page printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Weather the Storm, by Justin and Alexis Hernandez



















Sameach b'Chelko as Unconditional Happiness

Ben Zoma (Avos 4:1) taught: “Who is wealthy? One who is sameach b’chelko (happy with his portion).” This is the type of idea that can easily become cliché if it is not reexamined, refreshed, and revised from time to time. The latest update came to me this morning. I just started reading Awareness: The Perils and Opportunities of Reality (1990), by Anthony de Mello. The author makes the seemingly outlandish claim: “You don’t want to be happy.” He clarifies his meaning a few pages later:

I was saying that we don’t want to be happy. We want other things. Or let’s put it more accurately: We don’t want to be unconditionally happy. I’m ready to be happy provided I have this and that and the other thing. But this is really to say to our friend or to our God or to anyone, “You are my happiness. If I don’t get you, I refuse to be happy.” It’s so important to understand that. We cannot imagine being happy without those conditions. That’s pretty accurate. We cannot conceive of being happy without them. We’ve been taught to place our happiness in them.

In other words, to be sameach b’chelko means to be unconditionally happy. Stated differently, so long as your idea of happiness includes particulars which you regard as indispensable, then you cannot be sameach b’chelko. Your chelek (portion) is determined by Hashem, not by your idea of what your chelek should be. It is He Who sets the conditions, not you. The only condition is His will.

After writing the first half of this article, I decided this would be a good time to skim the meforshim (commentators) on Ben Zoma’s statement in light of this new insight. To my surprise, I didn’t find a single one who explained sameach b’chelko along these lines. The Meiri’s commentary is representative of the approach that most (if not all) of them took. He writes: “the definition of wealth is to be content and not lust after excesses; anyone who has what he needs and doesn’t seek excess is truly wealthy.” Rabbeinu Yonah takes the same approach but expands on what is implied by “needs:”

Who is wealthy? One who is sameach b’chelko – [namely,] a person who says, “My chelek is sufficient for me, since I am able to support myself and my household and be involved in Torah. Why should I concern myself with someone else’s money, so long as I have what I need in order to uphold the word of Hashem?” For one who is not sameach b’chelko and not satisfied with what Hashem gave him is poor … Thus, it is an exceedingly good trait to be sameach b’chelko, and he is called “wealthy” because Hashem gave him what he needs to sustain himself and be involved in Torah and in mitzvos. For what profit is there for man in all his toil, but to fulfill Torah and mitzvos?

These meforshim do not explain sameach b’chelko as “being content with one’s portion, no matter what that portion is” but rather “being content with one’s portion, on the condition that one’s needs are sufficiently met to be involved in Torah and mitzvos.” Their sameach b’chelko is conditional.

This leaves me in a quandary. On the one hand, de Mello’s explanation rings true to me as a philosophical ideal. On the other hand, the meforshim on Ben Zoma’s statement are consistent with my understanding of Torah values. The simple answer is that they’re talking about different things: de Mello is talking about happiness and Ben Zoma is talking about wealth. And yet, the definition of wealthy as “sameach b’chelko” is predicated on a definition of simchah (happiness), which leaves me wondering what the relationship is between that simchah and de Mello’s. Tzarich iyun (this question needs further analysis).
___________________________________________________________________________________
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle/Chase QuickPay and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast""The Stoic Jew" Podcast"Rambam Bekius" Podcast"Machshavah Lab" Podcast"The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here