Zen and The Bible

[adgloriam]

Good discussion @anon99031074, enriching for me. If you don’t mind, I would -briefly- like to ask what your religion is?

I just want to clarify 3 things briefly (clarification contributing to the quality of our exchange):

I am not quite sure what the argument here is with reference to the Buddha.

No argument. An exercise on my part, from what little I know. You pointed out the variant of Buddha’s personal history used by Herman Hesse isn’t consensual. Point taken. I place sanctity of the family as a top criteria so that’s one of the aspects in which I looked at Buddha. However, my critique was superficial from what you pointed out, so I’ll remit myself to eventually reexamine Buddha taking into account the broader aspects you were so kind to point out.

I have never heard that the Institute of Bible Studies in Rome claim special

They don’t claim. From my own overview they are the best positioned and the most credible. It’s very frequent for scholars, from all sides, to have some bias. Even today I frequently see bias masked as objectivity from Anglo-Saxon thinkers. So, the Roman institute deserves my vote of confidence, if not for anything else because the translation I read (I’m not a native English speaker) are usually traceable to scholars who studied in that institute. And, I’ve always been well served by their works when faced with variants in translation from other sources.

and you are certainly welcome to such a view

Thank you, I appreciate it. I sense we come from very different backgrounds, and our conversation gives much room for afterthought. I would like to say I did not pretend to place any claim of “antiquity” when contrasting Judaeo-christiany with Buddhism. Each being what it is in itself, were one to be older than the other that wouldn’t make it more “authoritative” because of that.

Like I said, I place sanctity of the family as a foremost value. And part of my exposition served also to clarify some points of subtlety on the issue. (And I did learn something new looking at Buddha from the perspective of a family man in his own historical/cultural context.)

 

[anon99031074]

Good discussion @Shunyata, enriching for me. If you don’t mind, I would -briefly- like to ask what your religion is?

I’ll give you the short version. If I die today, I will be given a Catholic burial, since I am baptized, have practicing relatives and am socially connected with the CC. I also have no inclination to resign, as it would cause people I care about heartache/existential angst, and not benefit anyone in any way. For most of my life, even as a child, I have been deeply interested in religions and spirituality and have spent a very significant portion of my life trying to get to the bottom of it all. For this reason I have a vast collection of spiritual writings from many different religions and spiritual traditions.

However, I view the world through Buddhist lenses, so to speak, and consider myself a dharma-practitioner. To me, this makes sense out of my experience more than any other way of viewing things. Several conditions led me to that point, one of the more important ones being what I could call a “kensho” (given the title of this thread) that happened during meditation years ago, and which changed my view of what it means to be me.

 

[Rabbi]

@adgloriam and @anon99031074,

I’ve read the full thread for better context.

The oldest record of the Torah on paper is the Dead Sea Scrolls. But we have certain aggadot that was left in those texts, which were later removed from Tanakh (the Bible) and placed in the Talmud. Aggadot are basically homilies, biographies, moral stories, etc., it’s all the “other” portion of Talmud, that being halacha, or practical Jewish law, which we believe were given to Moses at Sinai and passed down to the Sanhedrin, later to be preserved in the Mishnah (second century). How are we sure these oral teachings (halacha portions) were known before Yehudah HaNasi wrote them down? Evidence come from the Abyssinian Christians. These people, though they’ve lost their Jewish heritage, have practiced oral tradition unique to the Mishnah.

Now, to get on with your questions, when was the Torah first given to Moses? We’re talking not about preservation (DDS), but the actual mitzvot (commandments). According to the Torah, the Sinai event happened in 1312 BCE. That’s a long tome ago. And whereas every other religion on the planet started with one man’s story, Judaism claims to have had 3 million people witness the giving of the Torah. Such a miraculous event is no mere natural phenomenon, after all, when was the last time you heard a booming voice from the heavens? As you can see, we Jews put no stock in biblical criticism. The whole theory started with Spinoza (not Ibn Ezra), but we have the great sage, Rashi, to tell us what we need to know, and being that these “scholars” haven’t sought out rabbinical opinion, we know they’re off track and not searching for truth. Rather, they’re searching to confirm their biases. Case in point is that famous passage from Jeremiah where he talks about the lying pen of the scribe. A student not familiar with the Bible will be told that the navi (prophet) was talking about those redactors who edited Tanakh, and that he was against such molesting of the text. This is not true when one simply looks in context. The whole book of Jeremiah is a sad eulogy of the destruction of the First Temple. Jeremiah was warning the people not to pay attention to the lying scribes who were zealously ready for war with Babylon, and thought G-d on their side. Jeremiah knew this wasn’t the case, and that the Jews would lose the fight. This is what he meant, but it seems that people with PhDs could care less for context. Hence, they’re serving their biases.

But when is the first reference to the Messiah? Numbers 24:17. The concept of the Messiah is as old as Judaism itself, and, if I’m not mistaken, Buddhism has a similar concept.

The Talmud tells us that there’s a Messianic candidate per every generation, and that if the Jewish people will just merit his arrival, we will have world peace. We await that day, and pray for his speedily approach.

 

[Rabbi]

"To complicate things further:

You could turn the principle of analyses on its head. And search for demonic signs in the concrete manifestations of Zen. The devil loves nothing better than masking himself as an angel of light."

How can you say this and yet witnessed Zen monks to be people full of spirituality and enlightenment, as you’ve said earlier?

 

[adgloriam]

@Rabbi thank you very much for your answer. It’s the first time I engaged in conversation with a CAF member who is Jewish. Please allow me one day to ponder your response and mature my answer.

God bless.

 

[Rabbi]

Thank you very much, I’m happy to be in this discussion. There are many similarities between Judaism and Buddhism.

I must let you know that I won’t be writing on Shabbos, so I’ll see your response either Saturday night or Sunday morning. Just though I’d mention it.

 

[Rabbi]

“We are all descendants of Noah, and the Ten Commandments merely codify Natural Law. Even though their knowledge of God was corrupted over the centuries on account of various sins, they still retained some memory of the God of Noah.”

You’re saying the Jews corrupted the Torah? Or is this through the Talmud and later rabbinic writing? It is certainly true, says the Ralbag, that the first people to receive the Torah weren’t by far great Torah scholars, so G-d had to present it to them in a way they’d comprehend Him. That’s why you have certain passages which talk about G-d having legs and arms. Rambam says that we must understand such things to be metaphorical.

 

[Rabbi]

This is so incorrect. Angels never developed from past gods. You’re not reading Jewish sources, I don’t know what you’re reading, but I’d like to know.

In Judaism, angels don’t have free will. Angels might not even exist (as well as demons), says the Rambam, and if they do, they’d lack the physical nature which makes us human, and would be no more than two-dimensional beings.

But let’s say that you’re right, because there are hints to this in today’s reading of Tehillim, especially one word change in Parshat Haazinu, the line “Mi Kamocha” in shirat hayam, and the seeming council that G-d consults in the creation of man. But this is just a theory, it really means nothing. Tanakh isn’t apart of the Mesopotamian, Ugarit, and Akkadian theological myths, so this isn’t a mere re-cast of gods into angels.

Regarding the “no other gods” before me, it simply means not worshiping idols of wood and stone as if they were gods or somehow are in connection to G-d. This is a common misconception, and though some Jews hold to such a daas yachid (minor opinion), it is incorrect. The early Jews were in no way henotheistic in their attitude. Note that “El” is used in the Torah to denote a power and “adon” to denote a human lord or master. The word “Malach” is used to denote both an angelic and a human messenger. Hebrew is a tricky language with a single word often having multiple meanings so that one has to rely on context.

Also, we don’t rely on the Septuagint, as that was done by Christian hands alone. The rabbis only translated the Torah. That’s it. All the records, whether talmudic or historic, point to this fact, even Christian sources echo this, such as Jerome. Regarding the “wife” of G-d, this is akin to Jeremiah’s “Queen of heaven,” and was, again, merely a form of idol worship, meaning, those Jews went rouge with the idea. The notion that Judaism came after the Babylonian captivity is a controversial one. Certainly, some rabbinic scholars as far back as the Medieval era (I talking about R. Nachmanides) have admitted that certain elements of Judaism did indeed derive from other traditions (things that are minhagim in origin (custom), but not the ideas regarding the basic fabric of Jewish life, such as keeping Shabbos and the idea of one G-d. Even Pesach is Jewish in origin; there’s little to no proof it was a Greek custom.

@rossum, I’d like to know if you’re Buddhist by chance.

Because the Jewish view is very much in opposition to the Buddhist one. In Judaism, we desire suffering, in fact, we want more of it. Because only through suffering do we finally have the will to overcome it. So rather than be detached from the world and care less for everything, we fight for peace, for stability, for reassurance in faith in humanity. This is what’s called tikkun olam, and eventually, it’ll pay off with a perfected world. This is our mission, in fact, it’s the mission of all people. So what if we redirected all that energy telling us to “escape” this place, and rather, fought to make it better? I think that’s a worthy task for one’s life.

 

[anon99031074]

This is so incorrect. Angels never developed from past gods. You’re not reading Jewish sources, I don’t know what you’re reading, but I’d like to know.

This is one of those discussions I believe will lead nowhere because it cannot be proven one way or the other with absolute certainty. So I probably shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place. It also isn’t terribly important to my worldview. But since I started with making a claim (from my admittedly fallible memory), I will follow up with documentation. However, I won’t spend a lot of time debating it. Take it for what it is.

Deuteronomy 32:8 in the Masoretic Text (MT, 600-900 CE) reads:

“When Elyon divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of the sons of Israel.
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.”

The Septuagint (LXX, 250-100 BCE) reads:

“When the Most High divided the nations,
when he scattered the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations,
according to the number of Gods angels,
and his people Jacob became a portion for the Lord.”

The Deuteronomy scroll from the fourth cave of Qumran, DSS, which is a thousand years older than the MT, reads:

“When Elyon divided the nations,
When he separated the sons of Adam,
According to the number of the sons of the gods.
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.”

As I see it, this is an origin story of how Yahweh, among the sons of the chief gods, came to be the god of Israel. El Elyon, the most high God, divided the nations according to the number of sons of gods (lesser deities in the pantheon, it is an idiom used much in ancient near eastern litterature), such as Yahweh, Baal, Marduk, etc., and Yahweh got Israel. As Judaism progressed from polytheism towards monotheism, the text was altered, first to angels and then to Israelites, (making less sense with each step, as I see it anyway).

Continuing with the same chapter, we learn of the victories of Yahweh, how he has conquered his enemies, the Egyptians. Verse 43 reads:

“Praise, O heavens, his people
kneel before him, all you gods” (DSS)

“O heavens, rejoice with him,
worship him, all you angels of God” (LXX)

“Oh nations, rejoice with his people” (MT)

Same pattern, only here the MT has simply removed the entire second sentence, which referenced other divine beings.

This is admittedly a very surface level look at the text, and not “proof”. I am simply referencing my own claim, and with this I am happy to let you respond whatever way you wish, and put the matter to rest.

 

[rossum]

if I’m not mistaken, Buddhism has a similar concept.

You are right. The next Buddha, Maitreya Buddha, will appear when the current iteration of the Buddhist religion has completely died out; all things are impermanent, Buddhism included. Maitreya will enlighten himself as Shakyamuni Buddha did and then re-establish the Buddhist religion.

@rossum, I’d like to know if you’re Buddhist by chance.

I am Buddhist by choice. I was brought up as a Christian. When I hit my teens I dropped religion and switched to atheism. That was mainly because I objected to the rather too common, “anyone who does not exactly agree with us is damned for eternity,” attitude I found. After a few years I moved away from atheism; I felt that while it did avoid many of the problems with Christianity it was not itself a solution. I looked at different religions to find something that would work for me. None of the Abrahamic religions attracted me – as a hangover from my atheism I still had a problem with the concepts of God and soul. Initially I was interested in Hinduism. The background of Indian religion provides a very different world view: less exclusive – everyone achieves liberation eventually, the concept of karma and a much more relaxed attitude to other religions and to alternative variants of the same religion. Of the Hindu texts, the Bhagavad Gita and Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras were the ones that attracted me most. In particular there is hardly any mention of gods in the Yoga Sutras. That seemed to be an interesting direction to explore.

Reading round Hinduism I inevitably came across Jainism and Buddhism. Jainism has souls but no gods, or at least no important gods. Buddhism has no souls and its attitude to gods is very casual – like any other living being they need to become enlightened. A mere god is far inferior to a Bodhisattva, let alone to a fully enlightened Buddha. Buddhism seemed to have the elements I was looking for: non-exclusivity, no soul, morality and while it did have gods, they were unimportant and could easily be ignored. So I tried Buddhism. I studied more on it, went to groups and to meditation classes and found that everything fitted together well and it suited the way I wanted to go.

A frequently quoted Buddhist text is the Kalama sutta which says that if we are to accept something then we have to try it first to check that it is correct:

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

This advice applies to the Buddha’s own words just as much as to anything else. I followed the Buddha’s advice. I tried Buddhism, found that it worked and I have followed it ever since.

 

[Rabbi]

Very well said. I appreciate your response. Had you grown up Jewish…

You wouldn’t have left, because Judaism does not hold to the view that those who do not follow it are damned. It is my understanding that more and more Catholics also do not hold to such a view, and that’s a good thing.

But here’s the problem with the Eastern solution (not that one can’t practice it, we Jews are open to it, it’s just not our cup of tea)… while it is all-exclusive, it actually isn’t, for one who’s against the majority has suddenly become the minority, and that person goes on unappreciated. Moreover, the way I understand it, Hindu theology states that if you were mugged and killed by a man on the street, don’t blame him. He’s learning. He will learn. In the meantime, too bad for you. You simply happened to be in his way, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. You remove any sense of responsibility for an individual. Suddenly, someone like Adolf Hitler just had to “grow,” it wasn’t his fault per se, he was working on “liberation,” and the Holocaust… it just had to happen. This sort of moral relativism falls flat. To me, it strikes as a deaf note.

Meanwhile, the Kabbalah teaches that every action, word, and thought, goes somewhere, and has an effect on all creation, so we’re all tied together in a spiritual-sort of way, and that one negative thought can influence the whole world in an obstructive way. So, stay clear of bad thoughts. We’re working towards something, a goal. Perhaps we’ll reach it in this lifetime, perhaps not. But the most important aspect is the journey. We’re moving. We’re striving. Let’s focus on getting there, not detaching from it.

This is the Jewish way. It is also non-exclusive, but to a degree. Non-Jews can join this movement, this call to revolution, to picking up the broken pieces of the world, and putting them back together, one by one… but not everyone is meant to be Jewish. Many people are born to non-Jewish parent. Don’t think that that wasn’t planned. HaShem has a role for all of us, and diversity is good, because through that diversity, when we overcome it, we’ll created the strongest bond of union, and it’ll be unbreakable. So a Jew keeps Shabbos, a non-Jew doesn’t. Everyone has their place. It’s like working in a factory, you have the manager, the blue-collar guy, the supervisor, and when all do their part, the factory shines, and production rolls in, and everyone’s happy.

 

[Rabbi]

Is it okay if I ask you something? Why is it wrong to believe in souls? The soul is the powerhouse of the body, it ignites you, it gets you moving. A body without a soul is dead. A soul without a body is meaningless (there’s no vehicle to get it to where it has to go, spiritually). In Judaism, one has many souls, and those souls can break into other souls, and the whole thing is just endless. But then came along the rationalists, and guess what? You should like this: they said there is no such thing as the soul, and if there was, it certainly wouldn’t help you in your spiritual growth. So now you see that there’s many vying ideas in Judaism, some of them are minor opinions, some strong. Some unique, some absurd. All are valid. No one idea reigns supreme.

That Sutta reminds me of a Gemara. Avot d’Rabbi Natan 31b says that if you’re in the middle of planting, and someone yells out in the street, “The Messiah has come!” Relax, it can wait. First, finish your planting, then go find out if it is true. Judaism also admires investigation. Nobody takes anything on blind faith alone. At least without some acquisition of knowledge first.

So why live Jewish? What’s the benefit? Don’t the rabbis say in yeshiva “Don’t do this, don’t do that”? Isn’t Judaism just mere legality and nothing else? Isn’t in dry? Many think there’s a lack of spiritual fulfillment in Judaism. That you don’t get “high” on it, that you’ve got to go East.

Let me tell you something: with the right skills and understanding, Judaism isn’t so dry. In fact, it’s more lively and has more warmth than any of the Eastern religions. After all, a mitzvah isn’t merely a commandment, it’s also a connection. Think of it in those terms, and suddenly, every mitzvah you do, be it keeping Shabbos (which I’ll attend to in a minute), or keeping kashrut, is suddenly just one more step closer to G-d. With this spiritual link in mind, suddenly, keeping Torah isn’t so much a “yoke” anymore. Now, you’re gaining huge bouts of spiritual wisdom and accomplishment, and to top it off, you’re bringing the world closer to the Messianic Age. It’s a win-win situation, what could be better!

This, my friend, is the advice of the rabbis, the advice of Judaism. I, personally, have found it to be gratifying too, and it’s why I’ve never thought about leaving it.

Judaism, like Buddhism, also has value. The “Abrahamic” faiths are not meaningless, otherwise, why else do you think great men and women have put their hearts and souls into it?

 

[rossum]

Meanwhile, the Kabbalah teaches that every action, word, and thought, goes somewhere, and has an effect on all creation,

Buddhism emphasises that actions have consequences:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

The Buddha divided other religions into useful, and not useful. The useful ones say actions have consequences; the not useful ones deny that. Fatalist religions, like the ancient Indian Ajivika, or contemporary extreme Calvinism, where our actions cannot affect our future destiny, are examples.

Is it okay if I ask you something? Why is it wrong to believe in souls?

Buddhism, especially Madhyamika Buddhism, rejects reification. On the conventional level, each of us exists, and each of us changes. A Soul (capital letters are often a sign of reification) is seen as permanent and hence unchanging. Something which changes cannot be permanent. Since change is ubiquitous then nothing can be permanent. We imagine that there are permanent things, and we project those imaginings out onto the external world.

An arachnophobe fears spiders. The fear does not exist in the external world the way that the spider does, it is projected out onto the spider. Our imagined Soul is just another such projection.

Our senses are imperfect, so the internal models our brain builds are also necessarily imperfect. By projecting those imperfect models out onto the real world we get a mismatch between the world and our imperfect internal models. That mismatch is a cause of suffering. “I will love you forever,” for example. That statement cannot be true, yet if we desire it to be true we will be disappointed. A Soul is the projection of our sense of our own permanence. A little thought tells us that we are not permanent.

A quote from “Funes the Memorious” by Borges:

Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol dog embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).

Buddhism analyses a human being into five components: body, feelings, perceptions,karma-formations and consciousness. None of those components is unchanging and none of them is a soul.

To believe in a Soul is to believe in an illusion, and that is not helpful.

 

[Shakuhachi]

In the book, Habito takes Psalm 23 and for a Zenish reflection translates, “I AM is my shepherd…”. The Tetragrammaton is indeed used in the Hebrew. So read in that way it is a call to the present moment, to God in the present moment, always there, always providing, protecting and sustaining.

When I meditate I quite quickly come to an inner silence, inner stillness. It is peaceful and relaxing. But also rather impersonal. My question to everyone is, when you pray, what makes you think you are in the presence of another person? Is it faith?

So at this point I try to remind myself that all that I feel or perceive, even though it seems empty and dull, is the presence of God. But since we are all over stimulated by our distracting world, we don’t have the subtle refinement of our sense to more deeply appreciate what God’s presence really is.

I have been a meditator now for 40 years. It has been a wonderful path and I realize not everyone takes it. And even though I have been able to deepen my sensitivity of the present “I AM” it remains for me a matter of faith that God as a “Person” is there. But it also makes sense since I am a person and certainly God is greater than his creation.

 

[Rabbi]

I’m sorry for the slow response, I was busy, but let me correct you here.

Firstly, we have to see these texts in their original Hebrew, as English translations are always a little off. Secondly, why do we assume that all these texts were Sefer Torahs? Qumran has endless Torahs, but the mode of storage indicates that these Torah scrolls might have been a Genzia, or sacred disposal, being they’re either scribal errors or heretical, like the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Third. Were these texts altered to reflect changes in theology? If so, how come scholars always use existing texts to prove that? It doesn’t make sense. Did the censors change the text, or did the text reflect the history of thought at that time?

Yes, there are plenty of statements in Tanakh which mention other gods - and we will get a chance to look at this more in depth soon - but I’ll just point out that the Canaanite pantheon had over 70 gods, with a father named El Elyon, who had 69 children, one being Ashara, another, Baal. There was found a temple to the former, it was kept up for hundreds of years, even in the time of King Solomon. But this doesn’t prove anything. It very well could have gone like this: G-d revealed that there is only one G-d. Through time, people somewhat forgot this, and started worshiping other gods alongside HaShem. Then the Nevi’im were sent to correct that.

Fourth. There is a concept by some meforshim indicating the existence of other spiritual forces - each nation being assigned one (or each spiritual force being assigned to a nation), but these are all subservient to G-d. See Psalm 95:3, 97:7 as examples. As a result, these forces are not really “elohim” in the true sense of the word (meaning “power”, and though it has a plural ending, the word itself isn’t, as is indicated in the fact that all verbs used with elohim are singular, like Shamayim or Mayim). However, it can also be understood as suggesting a people entering into a relationship with the Divine, whether that Divine is an angle, or some other power, is besides the point - the Torah is clear when it comes to Abraham that there is just one G-d. The accepted view, on the board, is that such beings - whoever they are - don’t really exist, and if they do, they don’t merit our worship. This is highlighted in the fact that you’ve made a clear mistake, as there is no reason whatsoever, to conclude that “Elyon” and the “Lord” are different entities, rather, this is a form of poetic license, as in these ancient texts, we often find that the same entity is given many names, simply to avoid repetition. At least this is the reading one gets when they close their ears and just hear the pshat. After all, “You will have no other gods before Me,” means just that. No other gods. Ain ode milvado.

 

[Rabbi]

Anything less would be bordering on sophistry. To further my point, I’ve made a list of a.) places called G-d, and b.) people called G-d. None of these nouns are G-d, and that’s very important. There’s only two clauses in Tanakh: either you’re HaShem or you’re not, but it works like an attorney-client relationship, since these people, places and things serve as agents of G-d, they’re represented Him.

• Jerusalem is called “G-d, our righteousness” (Jeremiah 33:16),
• Zion is “G-d” (Ezekiel 48:35),
• The Messiah is called “G-d” (Jeremiah 23:6),
• Isaiah is named “G-d” to King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:10),
• King Solomon is suddenly the “Son of G-d” (2 Samuel 7:13-14),
• David is called the “Son of G-d.” (Psalm 8:5 - or 8:4/8:6 in some Christian Bibles),
• Jacob’s alter is called “G-d” (Genesis 33:20),
• An altar is named “G-d” (Judges 6:24),
• The altar again is called “G-d” (Genesis 35:7),
• Moses builds an altar he names “Adonai/Lord” (Exodus 17:15),
• Latter, Moses speaks as “G-d” though there is no transitional phrase (Deuteronomy 11:15),
• Satan is called “G-d” (1 Chronicles 21:1-2),
• The satan speaks as “G-d” (Numbers 22:35) though G-d earlier spoke in verse 5,
• An angle is called “G-d”, the plural would be “eilim” (Genesis 19:24/Psalm 82:1),
• Angels are called “G-d” (Amos 4:11),
• An angel is called “G-d” and acts like G-d - though the text is clear to say he isn’t G-d (Zechariah 3:1-4),
• An angel is called “G-d” and his Maker commands the people to obey him (Exodus 23:20-22),
• Judges are called “G-d” (Exodus 21:6, 22:8),
• Eve calls Adam the "Adonai/Lord” (Genesis 4:1),
• Moses is called “G-d” (אֶלהִים) twice (Exodus 4:16 and 7:1) - does this now make him the Creator of heaven and earth? Has he now always co-existed with the Creator, even though Genesis makes no such reference?

Now, for some names which routinely mean G-d.

• Hezekiah - The Mighty G-d,
• Tovia - Goodness of G-d,
• Elienai - G-d Is My Eyes,
• Jehoiada - Knowledge of G-d,
• Hananiah - Gracious Adonai/Lord,
• Elisha - G-d Is Salvation,
• Elijah - Yhwh - G-d,
• Gedalia - Great G-d,
• Jesse - Adonai/the Lord Is,
• Joshua - Adonai’s salvation
• Elihu - G-d Is He,
• Eliab - G-d Is Father,
• Eli - G-d Is,
• Eliezer - Help of G-d,
• Tzurishada - My rock, G-d.

But never forget, Deuteronomy 6:4,

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד

 

[adgloriam]

Now, for some names which routinely mean G-d.

• Hezekiah - The Mighty G-d,
• Tovia - Goodness of G-d,
• Elienai - G-d Is My Eyes,
• Jehoiada - Knowledge of G-d,
• Hananiah - Gracious Adonai/Lord,
• Elisha - G-d Is Salvation,
• Elijah - Yhwh - G-d,
• Gedalia - Great G-d,
• Jesse - Adonai/the Lord Is,
• Joshua - Adonai’s salvation
• Elihu - G-d Is He,
• Eliab - G-d Is Father,
• Eli - G-d Is,
• Eliezer - Help of G-d,
• Tzurishada - My rock, G-d.

But never forget, Deuteronomy 6:4,

I’ll take this opportunity to ask a question @Rabbi. I’ve always made an effort to memorize the list of meanings you enumerated…The family of names deriving from “Eli”, you say the meaning of “Eli” is:“G-d Is”. Can the word/name “Eli” be further reduced (by taking letters from it) to mean only “G-d” ?? I thought “Eli” was the maximum reduction in form (the stem of the word) and thus the meaning “is” wasn’t within the word…Or is the form ambivalent in meaning (potentially holding with “is” and without “is” in its meaning??)

 

[adgloriam]

"To complicate things further:

You could turn the principle of analyses on its head. And search for demonic signs in the concrete manifestations of Zen. The devil loves nothing better than masking himself as an angel of light."

How can you say this and yet witnessed Zen monks to be people full of spirituality and enlightenment, as you’ve said earlier?

Here you address something different of what I said. An act of mercy or charity is meritorious (however in writing this, I notice these terms are shaped, for a catholic, by the new testament). An example would be practicing meekness (a virtue praised in the books of wisdom). Anyone can practice such an act, regardless of their religion (including the monks you quote me on, and taking into account much of their system is based on practicing virtues our religions share). [I didn’t apply the words “spirituality” or “enlightenment” (if I recall) due to ambiguity that wouldn’t dispense defining the terms (a considerable effort I’ll avoid). Hence virtue (or an act conductive of an habitual inner disposition we’d call holiness) -in the simplest sense- (as something of merit, of wisdom, and of holiness in the catholic sense.) ] I do have some difficulty in defining the term holiness in the jewish sense working exclusively from my knowledge of the OT.

Now, the topic of the thread tied the specific form/system of meditation that is Zen to catholic mysticism. Within “mystical theology” it is commonly held that both good and evil (the former of “supernatural” and the later of “pretenatural” - solving with 2 catholic taxonomies the “angel issue” that was several times raised) can act/influence one’s spirit (not forgetting we can influence ourselves). What I said ensues the above (perfectly analogue to the objection you raised in post nº90 and called “moral relativism”).

Lovely conversation @Rabbi --, but I must take my leave from this thread at this point for lack of time. I read the entirety of your writing here, and I thoroughly enjoyed your elaboration on Judaism. If I were to highlight a favorite part of your writing it would be the abundance of Hebrew words, the musical reference, the general overview of Judaism you gave by your specific choices, and off course the part of Sacred Scripture we share.

 

[Rabbi]

The name “Eli” is עלי, not אלי. אל is the generic word, so אלי is “my G-d,” but usually you don’t find an “is” in Hebrew.

You asked me about the Jewish term for “holiness,” the closest I can think of is a righteous person, whom we call a Tzadik. There is a psak (ruling) that the Rambam made based on a Gemara in Berachot between a dispute held by Rav Yochanan and Rav Avahu on whether or not a Baal Teshuva sits on a higher plain than a Teshuva could in a lifetime of righteousness. It first appears that the Rambam accepts this, although it contradicts what he said in Peirush HaMishnayot. So what’s the deal? One finds in Yad Hazaka, however, that there are all kinds of long exhortations of advice on things which are not halachic (practical Jewish law)!

He says, “The Sages said that the place in which Baal Teshuva stands is one that complete Tzaddikim cannot attain.” In other words, this is no halchaic ruling, but the hashkafa (philosophic outlook) is certainly there. In fact, Rambam also said that if there was a dispute on emunah (faith) between the Tanaim, Amoraim, and Gedolim, which involved philosophical outlooks, he couldn’t offer a psak, rather, we shouldn’t be tide to any one opinion other than that which we admire most; as long as there are no halachic ramifications to it.

Well, I hope that wasn’t overly detailed! Please let me know if anything sounded a little too confusing there!

I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the readings. Please take care until we meet again. In the meantime, I’ll part with one final word for you which, I think, underlines the differences between Judaism and Buddhism…

When you think of it, the difference between Buddhism and Judaism really boils done to one point. Why, and how. Well, what do I mean by that? Buddhism seeks to understand the nature of reality, to understand who we are, and where we’re going. It’s a great philosophy, but there’s one problem: Buddhism isn’t concerned with what the Creator wants, Buddhism is concerned with “I”. What can “I” do for myself. This isn’t Judaism. Judaism seeks to understand “why” we exist, not how. Based on that assumption, it tries to unravel the mystery of creation: if this the perfect world? How can we make it better? There is no “I” in Judaism, there is “we”. We’re here to serve the Creator, and the creation He made, not ourselves. No one’s waiting to escape into Nirvana, that’s an excuse to not deal with the world’s problems. No, we want to be here. We want to be reincarnated, again, and again, and again, until we solve it. So far, no one (I mean Buddhists) have adequately responded this these definitions.

 

[Rabbi]

Other than Tzaddikim, we have the Hebrew kodesh but is it synonym with G-dliness, or does it exist inofitself? surely, a question which may never have an answer, and that’s the fun part!