The man and his word...

Emmanuel Levinas wrote a famous essay, I love the Torah more than God, after reading a short story written by my grandfather, Yosl Rakover Talks to God by Zvi Kolitz. (Note to self: write a blog entry on Yosl and his story.) The essence of this story, if I remember correctly (it has been a while since I have read it) was that Levinas admitted that he could not comprehend God and his actions (or lack of action) because he could not understand how God as we understand the notion could allow something like the Holocaust to happen.

This is kind of a lead in to what I wanted to write about today - can we admire the work of someone (writer, thinker, author, philosopher, guru, ...) for whom we have no admiration as a person? When you read the writings of spiritual 'leaders' like Osho or Gurdjieff (to name but two) and see wisdom, profundity, inspiring words and ideas, thinking that you recognize as 'right' for you... it is very difficult, for me, to reconcile their spiritual wisdom with their life stupidity. When you read accounts of how they treated people, how they abused their power, their (often) material crassness, etc. then what is one to think of their words? Do you throw out the bath water because the baby is dirty? Or do you do as Levinas has done with God, admitting that he cannot understand the creator while confessing his admiration for the creation?

One person who has taken a good stab at framing this question of 'how is it possible to be so developed and enlightened on one level and a total idiot on other levels?' is Ken Wilber. He has developed a philosophical / developmental framework he originally named after himself but later renamed AQAL (all quadrants all levels). The idea being, in a nutshell, that there are four axes of development we all follow and you can be advanced on one axe and not very far along another - concurrently! Thus it is quite logical that someone can be both spiritually wise and a social idiot, or something to that effect.

The framework looks something like the diagram above which I believe he has revised a bit since, but hopefully the idea is clear: four axes - social, cultural, behavioral and intentional - on which we can develop. In some areas we advance faster and in others slower.

I should mention my take on Wilber. I think he is brilliant but I don't think he is enlightened and I think he would rather be enlightened than brilliant. He is a master synthesist (he now, rightfully, calls his work 'Integral') and he is probably one of the more thoughtful and knowledgeable writers-thinkers-philosophers-psychologists of our times. However, I feel that if he would just stop trying to impress everyone with his spirituality (as he has always impressed everyone with his intellect - apparently that was not enough), his writing would be even more fantastic than it already is. He is also a major contributor to EnlightenNext magazine in which he is the Pandit to Andrew Cohen's Guru (Cohen who suffers from the opposite of Wilber - he is probably enlightened but would like to be brilliant - which makes their partnership even more interesting...).

So what do you think, what takes precedence the creator or the creation? Can one shine without the other? Or do only those that walk the talk, like Thich Nhat Hahn, merit our consideration?

[Still more thoughts on] Peace is every step

I have been reading Peace is Every Step by Thich Nhat Hanh in small sips, savoring them like a glass of fine wine. And interestingly, that's how I imagine he would like his short thought pieces to be read. Read, think, digest, apply.

He has a small chapter called Hugging Meditation. I will reproduce the first couple of paragraphs as they convey the essential message quite clearly, simply and with an economy of words (as usual):

Hugging is a beautiful Western custom, and we from the East would like to contribute the practice of conscious breathing to it. When you hold a child in your arms, or hugy your mother, or your husband, or your friend, if you breathe in and out three times, your happiness will be multiplied at least tenfold.

If you are distracted, thinking about other things, your hug will be distracted also, not very deep, and you may not enjoy hugging very much. So when you hug your child, your friend, your spouse, I recommend that you first breathe in and out consciously and return to the present moment. Then, while you hold him or her in your arms, breathe three times consciously, and you will enjoy your hugging more than ever before.

Quite simple isn't it?! As in much Eastern spirituality, the importance is "being there", focused on what you are doing. As a Japanese friend once said to me "you have to decide: either you are talking to me or you are making me tea." At the time I did not understand why talking while making tea could be seen as insulting...

Growing up in the States, I always took hugging for granted. While bear hugs are common, and true hugs happen often, hugging in America can also be a superficial affair with minimal contact, or little back taps that hide the discomfort of physical proximity. Thich Nhat's hugging meditation can make those more real. Not that all hugs need to be real, but the ones he mentions - those among parents and children, friends, family, spouses - could probably benefit from this 'focused hugging' approach.

Even though my parents were not American-born they were quick to pick up the custom. I was hugged as a child and so I feel comfortable hugging. But many countries are not hugging countries. France is one of them. People kiss to say hello, even guys, but we don't hug here. There is actually no real word for hugging. The word for embracing, which would be the literal translation, is used for kissing. To differentiate I use the word 'hug' in French, which does not exist and has the double inconvenience of the h which the French do not like to pronounce on its own. Linguistic differences aside, it is interesting to see the cultural differences too.

In France, at least based on my experience, it is not common for parents to hug their children and thus grownups are probably less comfortable hugging too. Despite being very tactile, holding hangs, putting arms around each other's waists or shoulders, public displays of affection, couples do not really hug very often or at all. A hug is usually the prelude to a kiss, not an end in and of its own. I remember one ex-girlfriend who admitted to me that she had never hugged her mother, ever. I tried to coax her to hug but she did not feel comfortable initiating contact. We figured out a way around the problem by me 'sending hugs' to her mother which she would deliver. But even then, she admitted that it was not natural. The things we take for granted!

In any case, truly hugging someone, focusing on the hug, can be an incredible experience. Thich Nhat Hanh tells us that these "hugging meditations" have the power to make serious breakthroughs in relationships in general and especially among couples... and like smiling, it's free!

Happy hugging

[Thoughts on] The Bible

While on vacation I came across the French "Philosophie" magazine's special summer issue on the Bible, i.e. the Old Testament. The wonderful and not always comprehensible stories of the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, Abraham's fatherhood at 100, Abraham's apparent inhumanity in the face of the banishment of Ishmael, Abraham's apparent inhumanity in the sacrifice of Isaac, the story of Joseph and his brothers, are all commented by philosophers living or dead, with more or less pertinence, understanding and wisdom...

Those stories and others like the story of Jacob and Rachel, which inspired Thomas Mann to 'fill out' the biblical author's tendency to concision and obfuscation of insight (we are told what happens but rarely why or what thinking led to specific actions), are very intriguing - both in literary and spiritual terms.

For example, how can one understand the notion of human sacrifice? Abraham for example, was willing to sacrifice both of his children, his only children. He sends off his firt-born, Ishmael, into the desert with Agar with nothing more than some bread and water... no sheep, no donkey, no nothin'. Then, soon after, he is  willing to sacrifice the son he had at 100 with Sarah (who was 94 at the time) who, for all he knows will be his only son (it turns out he will have other children, and sons, with future wives - and there was no viagra at the time...).

What is funny is that the conversation between Abraham and God used to sound surreal, or not how normal "people" speak. With modern times, it now, funnily enough, sounds more or less like a cell phone conversation... "Abraham?" "Here I am."... (As usual, the biblical author doesn't say where the conversation takes place or how, there is basically just a transcript.)

What is incredible is that Genesis is practically not much more than a short story - in my English version it is about 68 pages long, it is even less in my Hebrew version. And within those pages, how many stories! how much subtext! how much possible commentary! It is teeming with history, geneology, creation, destruction, incredible love stories, treachery, murder, birth, death, new beginnings, vices of all sorts, angels, nation-building, leaving home, homecomings, deception, generosity, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Garden of Eden, kings and paupers, fidelity and adultery, the many faces of man, the many facets of God... 68 pages. Rich, dense, intriguing, fascinating... Just for a little perspective, Thomas Mann wrote over 1300 pages in Joseph and His Brothers 'filling out' just a few pages from Genesis.

Well friends, it looks like it is time, for me, to reread it. First in English and then I will try again in Hebrew. I hope I gave you the desire to read it again too...

[More thoughts on] Men and Women

Well as I continue reading David Deida's The Way of the Superior Man (that I discussed in a recent blog entry) I keep finding myself having aha! moments. While sometimes he can seem to push the "Me Tarzan, You Jane" envelope a bit, it seems to me that he is actually quite clear and insightful about expected roles, default roles, and what happens if partners play different roles than the 'classic' roles of Tarzan and Jane. He is not against straying from traditional roles per se, but warns us about the consequences if we stray without understanding what that implies long-term for the relationship's dynamics.

I found myself revisiting various relationships I have had in the past and seeing how what he describes "could happen if" did come to pass in those relationships. I found myself shaking my head and thinking to myself 'yup, I did that' and 'yup that happened to us' and 'yeah, I guess that's what we did', etc.

While this is not the essential issues I am refering to, here is one example that I know I have been guilty of on numerous occasions... David Deida writes, "The thing your woman is complaining about is rarely the thing she is complaining about. It is a mistake to believe the content of what she is saying, and then respond to her complaints, point by point." He gives a few examples, which not everyone will find pertinent to them but which illustrate his message quite well, namely that a complaint coming from a partner is an alert to something, the content of which is usually only somewhat-related to the true problem that is being signaled.

In that context Deida goes on to write, "you must listen to your woman more as an oracle than as an advisor. She usually is speaking in a very tangential, but revelatory, style. [...] Hear her complaint as the universe giving you signs about your life." Here Deida builds a pretty good case for realizing that women are good at realizing that there may be a problem in their man's life but not always adept at verbalizing it. If you get stuck on the details of the complaint and you don't hear the true message that is behind it, both partners end up frustrated, feeling misunderstood and often angry...

This is a bit similar to another idea Deida talks about which is the "feminine trait of wanting one thing and asking for another." He points out that many men get pissed off and wonder "Why don't you just tell me what you really want, instead of saying one thing and meaning another, expecting me to figure it out?" I have, and probably all of my guy friends have definitely felt this (and complained about this) in the past. However Deida does a pretty good job at explaining how easy it is to 'miss the point'. He suggests that the "superior man" should understand the underlying dynamic (which is basically a test of your manhood) and react to it intelligently and in a way that builds the relationship rather than whittling away at it. In psychological terms, this is similar to a double bind. According to Deida the woman verbalizes a desire for one thing that if satisfied would keep her man from satisfying a personal desire or doing what he needs to do. His idea is that if you give in to her and satisfy her need she may be happy in the short-term but the man will have undermined some of the respect she has for him.  As you can see, this makes for interesting reading and there is a lot of material that could potentially turn off more than just the hard-core feminists...

The chapters of the book are short and you can get most of the message from the title of the chapter and the lengthy sub-headings that follow them. However, to me the overall message is kind of like a guide to optimal relationship building - both in a polarized (Tarzan-Jane) world and a non-polarized (we are all equal) world - and a guide to mutual understanding among men and women. A guide that, for me, appears more intelligent, more on target, and less comic-bookish than the Venus and Mars series.

I would be curious to see how many who have read this book see things, or if it suffers from an overly masculine perspective that I naturally felt comfortable with but which others may not appreciate as much.

Let me know?!