Who has time to be spiritual?

Well it has been a while since I have posted to this site. And it has been some time since I have had time to take stock of anything spiritual, except to notice that I really haven't had time "to be spiritual" of late.

Even worse, I would say that any illusion of spirituality or of thinking/acting a bit differently flies out of the window when I am tired, under work stress, lacking sleep. Exactly when you need spirituality most it seems to be most elusive.

After the heat of the moments I remember some of the spiritual lessons and kick myself for not being able to apply them during the moment of truth. Reading the different spiritual books and sources has given me many tools to deal with stress and I think I do ok for the most part managing stress, but there are still too many slip-ups for me to look myself in the mirror and say 'you done ok kiddo'. Maybe one day. In any case, I just wanted to share with you some of my favorite 'stop and reframe' tricks. If you can call it a trick. In any case, it is something that I hope you can use more efficiently than I have in recent months, but that when I have used them have helped me quite a bit to diffuse otherwise delicate situations.

Two of my favorites are as follows:

•  The first, "What would love do now?" when in a confrontatational situation with someone. Taking a deep breath and saying to myself "ok, if I acted from a place of love and caring for this person how would I act in this situation, how could I react more positively?" This has helped me rewrite quite a large number of emails that otherwise would have been more ballistic and less constructive...
• A second, "This is not being done to me" which is kind of a mind set in which I remind myself that even though the person involved in some friction is not behaving as I would prefer, they are not doing it "to me" rather that is just something they are acting out with me. I got this one from the Course in Miracles and I am explaining it poorly, but it is very powerful reframing approach which helps me especially in 'altercations' with strangers when someone acts meanly or spitefully without provocation. 

Anyway, short but I am now being kicked out of the cafe that I am writing this from. I hope this helps a little bit and in any case I am happy to be back : )

Giving (better) advice or giving advice (better)

One of the things that are tough to deal with in our post-modern world is the whole notion of giving advice. And that is for many reasons. The more we read and search and learn the more we have a willingness to share that knowledge with others. And sometimes that "willingness to share" comes out less neutral than we would like and more like advice.

Then there are many hang-ups about advice. We all have our own but often I know that I feel that maybe giving advice is a form of arrogance? I mean really, without going to the extent of Socrates, do I really know enough about anything to justify giving advice? Then there are the social takes on advice, like only give advice when you are asked. Or the post-modern injunction of "everyone is ok as is" which I guess kind of precludes any advice that could possibly change someone. Then there is the Venus-Mars world in which apparently women are not looking for advice in respect to any problems/situations/decisions, they just want to be heard. Advice, such we are told, is a Mars no-no.

Spiritually-speaking, the more we delve the more we realize that the unseen is greater than the seen, that we understand a lot less than we think, and that what may ring true to us on one level may be seen from an entirely different perspective from another. Without going too far into that debate, it is clear that advice, in that spirit, is a slippery slope.

That said, we are often confronted with friends, colleagues, family members who either ask for or seem to need our advice. What to do, what to do?


An interesting answer to the question is given in a recent blog post in Psychology Today in which behavioralists seem to have cracked the code on effectivly giving advice. They looked into the way people actually use advice and found four main kinds of advice:  

• Advice for (a recommendation),  
• Advice against,  
• Decision support (suggesting how to make a decision); and 
• Information (offering new information about a subject).

Interestingly, decision makers seem to value the feeling (or illusion) of making their own decision independently. Thus the first three forms of advice makes the decision maker feel they have lost a bit of autonomy in making a choice. However, when the advice is given solely as information the decision can listen to and use the information without feeling like they have not made up their own minds - independently.

And if that wasn't enough, when you give advice as information it also helps the person receiving the advice in future related decisions and makes them more confident about their choice.

So there you have it, a little perspective on giving advice. However, please note that this post was made on a purely informative basis : )

Being and becoming

This post was inspired by an article read in EnlightenNext magazine (formerly What is Enlightenment?) - my favorite magazine over the last 6 years since I last discovered it.

The article was a discussion in a series of discussions between Ken Wilber (an 'integral philosopher') and Andrew Cohen (a 'spiritual leader' and founder of the magazine) on vertical and horizontal development.

It is actually one of their best discussions and one that is particularly a propos for 'our' generation in which there is a lot of confusion, I find, about what becoming a better person actually means - which is something I imagine most of us strive for (some more or less actively and/or consciously).

Without rewriting the article, the main idea in their words is that horizontal development is about being a better you, i.e. improving (without getting into what that means). While vertical development is about becoming a new 'you' (quotes mine, as the you changes I figure it merits something to show the before-after element). Wilber differentiates between the two as horizontal pertaining to being and vertical dealing with becoming. Both agree that both are necessary.

My own take on this, as I try to explain it to myself, is that horizontal development is about improving or personal improvement. Something I think every one of us sees as a goal at some level. Vertical development, I see as evolving into something new.

Now I see this also as a wonderful goal, and share at some level the belief of the authors that this is possible. At the same time I wonder if this is not simply human hubris. Let me explain.

A major element/theme in EnlightenNext magazine is evolutionary consciousness, levels of spiritual development and the belief in the ability of human beings to evolve as a race and as people. Now the first part, evolving as a race, from one generation to the next is something that appears clear and, thanks to Darwin et al., not too difficult to see over the history of our planet. The second, being able to evolve within our lifetimes, and to consciously evolve (i.e. something that does not happen by accident or mutation) requires a bigger leap of faith. Can we really change in the sense of becoming something or someone new or can we only become "better" or "more" of what we already are?

Most of the faith-based religions would say the latter. Even Buddhism shows enlightenment as an awareness of something you already were (and forgot), i.e. a reconnecting with not a reinventing of.

In other words, can we give credence or, better yet, experience the idea put into words by Cohen, "we're not simply making the self, as it is, better. We are engaging with the spiritual process in such a way that the result is going to be the emergence of some quality, ability and capacity that was not there before"?

I tend to think so and I hope so. But maybe that is just my own hubris...

The Afterlife... a question of perspective?

I recently read a book called Sum: forty tales from the afterlives by David Eagleman. Not the most insightful or deep book but it did present several versions of possible afterlives in a quick and witty format. Which led me to think a little bit about how much our personal perspective about the afterlife/afterlives plays or should color our approach to our present life. 

What you believe about the afterlife, what form you think it may or may not take, the existence of some form of continuity after this life, could make a big difference about how you live during this one. Without going into extremes about those who give up this life for promises of virgins, riches or paradise in another life, it seems like an important point that needs to be verified by each one of us. However, this question leads us, naturally, straight into the arms of either philosophy or blind faith (or both) as the answer cannot be known in this life. A bit of a paradox isn't it?!

Anyway, while thinking this over a song by Prince, which may or may not have a direct relation to philosophy or blind faith, which is called Let's Go Crazy. Some of the words go like this:

Electric word life

It means forever and that's a mighty long time

But I'm here 2 tell u

There's something else

The afterworld

A world of never ending happiness

U can always see the sun, day or night

So when u call up that shrink in Beverly Hills

U know the one - Dr Everything'll Be Alright

Instead of asking him how much of your time is left

Ask him how much of your mind, baby

'Cuz in this life

Things are much harder than in the afterworld

In this life

You're on your own

The final line of the above lyrics, which is not the last line of the song, is a bit brutal or honest or brutally honest (depending on how you want to see it). But depending on your perspective on both life and the afterlife, this may not be your own truth. 


As you mull over that, it is interesting to consider the role that the afterlife has played in different religions, philosophies and quasi-religions like Buddhism. The perspective on the hereafter definitely colors everything else. Oddly enough, in Judaism and Christianity, mentions of the afterlife seem to have been edited out of the religion as it has been presented to the masses. While discussions and texts refering to the afterlife have been debated among scholars, mystics and the 'initiated'. 


One interesting approach is that each individual experiences the afterlife as they imagine it. For those who imagine a fiery hell, that is what they get, just as those who imagine floating from cloud to cloud playing a harp will get to experience that image. Maybe this is the universe's way of allowing everyone to be right : ) 


The joke is on us though as we will be able to say 'Aha! I was right!' but we may possibly not have anyone to say it too!


I have one book that has been looking at me from my bookshelf for some time now. Heaven and Hell by Emmanuel Swedenborg, someone who took a very long look at the question. If I finally heed it's call, I will let you know what I think about it. In the meantime, be careful about your own perspective - because in this instance you may get what you wish for...

I am dualistic about Buddhism

Following up on my last post (a bit late due to an intense work schedule) I would like to comment on another text on Buddhism. After my last post I had an exchange with a former student of mine from China who is one of those people with whom you feel "spiritual toughness". What I mean by that is that you do meet occasionally people who seem illuminated or extremely spiritual or having some special "white" energy. At other times you feel people (and I mean feel as a synonym for a form of meeting people) who are extremely solid and grounded thanks to their spirituality. This was the feeling I received from this former student, now a friend, when he spoke of different elements of Taoism and Buddhism. After my last post I sent him a copy by e-mail as some blogs are blocked occasionally in some countries and cannot be consulted directly (another thing to be thankful for). In reply we had an interesting exchange. One thing he wrote me was the story used by Taoists to speak about Taoism.

The story goes something like this. A Taoist is like a man with hands and feet bound in ropes dangling over a cliff and holding on to a branch only with his teeth. Knowing this, we must be careful when we talk about Taoism. Knowing this, we talk about Taoism.

I thought this was a great image! If you open your mouth it's over, and yet we need to open our mouths... This was also his feedback, politely, concerning my writing about Buddhism. I should be careful I guess before I open my mouth. And this is true. Throughout this blog I am writing mostly about things of which I know very little of. I read a bit, according to the hasard of books, texts, ideas that cross my path, and react without the depth that comes from true understanding. Knowing that, I still open my mouth : ) 

As a follow up to my exchange by e-mail I was also sent a text called Buddhism in a Nutshell, written by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche of siddhartasintent.org. The text is quite interesting and really does get to the essence of what Buddhism is and is not. In four points, DKR explains that:

1. All compounded things are impermanent (and all phenomena are compounded).
2. All emotions are painful.
3. All phenomena are empty.
4. Nirvana is beyond extremes.

Even the path (Dharma) and the Buddha is impermanent, empty and an illusion. However DKR uses a wonderful image to explain why it is necessary. If you are trying to find someone you have never met, I can describe the person, show you a picture of the person, tell you what I know about the person and that way you can go and find the real person.

One of the reasons I am dualistic about Buddhism (pun intended) is that even Siddharta taught Buddhism three different ways. Instead of saying that his thinking evolved, Buddhists show some marketing moxy by calling it The Three Turnings of The Wheel and explaining it not as a "change of mind" (another intended pun) but as necessary evolutions in his teaching - which in all fairness does make sense.

In case you are curious, the three turnings are about a central element of spirituality, the mind. In the first turning the Buddha taught that there is a mind. In the second turning he taught that there is no mind. In the third turning he taught that mind is luminous. Different Buddhist commentators have interpreted the meaning of this evolution in Buddha's teachings, of which I know little. So on this subject of Buddha's change of mind concerning mind I will not open my mouth and leave you while dangling over the proverbial taoist cliff...

Benevolent Man

Sometimes you find spirituality in the darnedest of places. Here is a quote from Adam Smith, who could legitimately be considered the father of Western Capitalism:

No benevolent man ever lost altogether the fruits of his benevolence. If he does not always gather them from the persons from whom he ought to have gathered them, he seldom fails to gather them, and with a tenfold increase, from other people. Kindness is the parent of kindness; and if to be beloved by our brethren be the great object of our ambition, the surest way of obtaining it is, by our conduct to show that we really love them. 

Adam Smith

The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI Section II Chapter I

I don't actually feel that this one needs much comment... nor do I need to point out that the golden rule is "hidden" in there somewhere, along with some notion of moral justice and/or (the erroneous Western understanding of) karma... Nope! no need...

Buddha, Buddhism and Internal Paradox

I am now reading "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, who wrote this in 1958 while in Paris studying at the Sorbonne (which creates some sort of an affinity with me in my mind as it is also my alma mater).

What I like about this is that Rahula attempts to simply present the texts and Siddharta Gautama's original words and teachings. I am not sure that it is possible to do so but at least he makes an honest attempt to do just that.

While reading this book, from the very beginning, what struck me immediately is an internal paradox linked to Buddhism. Siddharta Gautama found his own truth by abandoning all traditional religions and their methods and going his own way. Unfortunately, to me this is the essence of Siddharta's message, you need to walk your own path. I say unfortunately because it makes our work more difficult. And my own feeling on this is that following any one else's method, no matter how beautiful, evolved, thoughtful, spiritual, ... including those of Buddhism, is a shortcut to someone else's truth.

The Buddha himself, who I prefer to call by his name Siddharta Gautama in order not to deify him, "attributed all his realization, attainments and achievements to human endeavour and human intelligence." And he seemed to believe that "man is how own master, and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny."

According to Rahula, Siddharta "taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop himself and to work out his own emancipation, for man has the power to liberate himself from all bondage through his own personal effort and intelligence."

So how do we go from a personal journey to an -ism, like other isms, religions and codified practices? While I have no doubt that the intentions were pure it seems that Siddharta was lacking the coldness of heart that someone like Jiddu Krishnamurti had. Siddharta saw the plight of others and tried to "teach, encourage and stimulate" where Krishnamurti called for uncompromising introspection with no real hints as to the how of proper self-knowledge and spent a lifetime trying not to become anyone's guru. It seems to me that both have a similar message but that somehow Siddharta allowed himself to become the Buddha, thus recreating some of that from which he broke free.

This is the inherent paradox I see in Buddhism. And it is even apparent to Rahula at some level as he begins his book by comparing the Buddha to other founders of religion, while wondering aloud "if we are permitted to call him a founder of a religion."

A final 'food for thought': Siddharta's story also made me think about how often in history spirituality is a privilege of the wealthy. Much like St. Francis of Assis, Siddharta was the son of wealthy parents (royalty) before becoming a renunciate. Maybe only wealth to the point of not having to worry about the bottom elements of Maslow's heirarchy of needs from a young age, leaves the mind to dedicate itself to more lofty or existential thinking. Who knows?

Nowism versus Balance?

In recent years among the many, many spiritual books, self-help books and assimilated, there have been two competing "truths". The first, embodied by 'the power of now', living only in the present instant, with books like the one with the same name by Eckhart Tolle, and the second embodied by this more fluffy notion of 'balance' accompanied by the injunction to find balance in your life, balance your personal and professional lives, eat a balanced diet, etc.

However, it seems strange to me that no one I have seen in the spiritual and self-help circles has written much about balance in relation to the power of now. I guess the main reason is that if you do you tend to invalidate the whole notion, I mean you can't live mostly in the present moment and be in the now. It's kind of like the joke about being somewhat pregnant, it's actually an either/or situation.

Trying to live only the present moment can, without too much intellectualization required, could lead the unsuspecting 'nowist' to hedonism, short-termism, egoism and probaly many other isms. That said, applying the notion of 'nowism', living in the present, participating fully in what you are doing, is something that is important to remember and, more importantly, to do, when appropriate. It is definitely easy to be so preoccupied with the future or the past that you don't participate fully in 'what's going on' and in that sense the injunction to live in the now is very useful.

A wider application of the power of now mandate of living in the present moment, as the future does not yet exist and the past only exist in our minds, is more difficult to apply. On the one hand, for those of us who have studied a bit of physics there is no such thing as past-present-future in such straightforward terms. While the injunction is probably useful for highly-evolved beings, if something like that exists, for the rest of us who are living in the time continuum it would be quite dangerous to apply the injunction 24/7. Which leads to my thinking on why we have not seen more people reminding us to balance this too. The tyranny of balance has been thrown at us at all levels in recent years, "you need to find balance", from balancing your finances to balancing all aspects of your personal, social, professional, educational, emotional, physical, and 'leisureal' (couldn't find an '-al' for that one) lives...

So what would balance in respect to the power of now look like? I guess it would imply that you experience the present fully (whatever that means) while still planning for the future (e.g. making plans) and remembering the past (e.g. using experience to avoid past mistakes). Could it be that simple???

PS Just for fun and thought: What's going on, Marvin Gaye

Mother, mother - There's too many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother - There's far too many of you dying
You know we've got to find a way - To bring some lovin' here today 

Father, father - We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer - For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way - To bring some lovin' here today

Picket lines and picket signs - Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me, so you can see - Oh, what's going on
What's going on - Ya, what's going on - Ah, what's going on

In the mean time - Right on, baby - Right on - Right on

Father, father, everybody thinks we're wrong
Oh, but who are they to judge us - Simply because our hair is long
Oh, you know we've got to find a way - To bring some understanding here today

Picket lines and picket signs - Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me - So you can see - What's going on - Ya, what's going on
Tell me what's going on - I'll tell you what's going on - Uh
Right on baby - Right on baby 

PS2 Thanks Marvin

Not understanding someone = a spiritual lesson on its way?

Every once in a while I see somone in a complicated situation and I think to myself "How did they let things get that way?" I wonder why they didn't they do X or Y or Z as it is so obvious that that is what is necessary. I just don't understand them. Often I shake my head, or think to myself in one form or another "I would have done things differently" which is a subtle or not-so-subtle way of considering myself smarter than another.

Something has happened though recently. Or rather I have started to notice something recently that looks like a pattern emerging. I have a feeling that every time I "don't understand someone" I condemn myself to understanding that person sooner or later. Learning, any form of learning, comes from reaching understanding concerning something which was formerly not understood. Spiritual learning, I have a feeling, comes from understanding humanity in all its forms. Sometimes I think that maybe we are God's Little Learners and that our growing understanding of human nature contributes to God's.

Once I hit on this idea I started to realize the long list of non-understandings that I have condemned myself to understand. Probably the majority of the list comes from our parents. "I don't understand how my parents could..." could be the beginning of many, many sentences.

Some things are silly in perspective but nevertheless there they are. I couldn't understand how my parents could be addicted to coffee. Or how they could drink coffee on a hot summer day. Now I do. I could not understand how my father could be addicted to smoking. Now I smoke a cigarette a few times a week and see how addicting it is.

Many more lessons come to me from my students, my colleagues, my friends, the occasional boss... I don't understand how... and then I do. I couldn't understand a certain type of plagiarism, I couldn't understand certain frustrations, I couldn't understand weight-reduction inducing heartbreak, I couldn't understand managing from emergency to emergency... now I do.

Let him without sin cast the first stone. Whether we have sinned or not, the potential is there in all of us. Which makes us all similar. Human. Maybe that is what our mission here is all about, checking off a long list of 'not understandings', a different kind of bucket list than we are accustomed to thinking about.

Now whenever I don't understand someone, it freaks me out a bit.  I realize either I have to figure it out then and there or I am condemning myself to live the experience. Then again, maybe life is all about empathy. I never could understand life ; )

[Follow up] Spirituality at work

So my last blog 'post', if I can call it that, on the subject of spirituality at work was a bit brief. As I struggle personally with the subject, it was interesting to find a few gems hidden in a book that I had started and not finished, right before I was about to banish it back to my bookshelves, possibly forever (gasp!).

The book is one that I already discussed in this blog in a past post - The Five Languages of Love. A good book with many pearls of wisdom that are very applicable. As I leafed through the book on the way to the bookshelf I feel on one of the last chapters which discussed love languages at work. The author relates one story in which two co-workers did not really get along. One of the two attempted to apply the precepts of the book and try to understand the love language of her co-worker. Once she did this her whole attitude to the co-worker changed, timidly, and, surprisingly to her, so did that of the co-worker did too. From two co-workers that were cold to each other, their relationship became one of mutual aid and eventually friendship. Asides from being a modern fable, it was actually quite interesting to think about... I tried to relate it to my own experience and it has given me food for thought.

A bit further though I read something that really caught my eye and attention. A sub-chapter entitled "Is it hypocritical to love?" It got my attention because this is really something I have been struggling with. How do you find love for people you work with if you don't know them or have an initially cold relationship? Can you pretend to love them without feeling like an idiot, or hypocritical or without causing them to think that you are just plain weird? It all seems very California granola-ish... not sure that it works anywhere in which granola is not considered one of the primary food groups.

And here was the chapter attempting to answer my question for me. So I read on.  The author Gary Chapman punted himself and referred to another author-thinker CS Lewis whom he quotes as follows:

The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering whether you "love" your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this, we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you love someone, you will presently come to love him.

I have been trying to apply these words. Occasionally I forget and the reaction of the 'other' is not pretty. When I stay on track though it is heart-warming (usually) to see the reactions of others.

It seems that no matter where I go with this blog it keeps circling back to the golden rule. Hmmm.

Anyway, I will try to apply CS Lewis's method. Just remind me gently if you see me forgetting to walk the talk... Gently. Please.

Benevolence and intention...

In a recent business presentation, of all places, I came across the following quote from Adam Smith, an economist who is best known for his Invisible Hand metaphor which is often understood, and possibly with the author's intention, to say that each of us, following and acting on our own self-interest (read egotism) actually ends up doing good for society, even if it is unintentional.

As the philosophical father of modern capitalism, I was a bit surprised to come across the following from the same author in a treatise entitled The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

No benevolent man ever lost altogether the fruits of his benevolence. If he does not always gather them from the persons from whom he ought to have gathered them, he seldom fails to gather them, and with a tenfold increase, from other people. Kindness is the parent of kindness; and if to be beloved by our brethren be the great object of our ambition, the surest way of obtaining it is, by our conduct to show that we really love them.

The first part of this quote is not too original but expresses the sentiment that is a bit like 'bread upon the waters' in which you gather what you sow tenfold in terms of human kindness. A definite benefit for those who apply the golden rule (see a previous post on this subject).

The second element, "kindness is the parent of kindness" is also a wonderful sentiment and something to remember, just like the contagious nature of smiles and laughter, kindness is also viral... So taking these two elements together it would seem that not only do you get back tenfold benevolence but you also spread tenfold benevolence around the world. The image that comes to my mind is the proverbial pebble ripples in a pond. Nice to think that that is or could be the case.

The third element of this wonderfully rich paragraph is a bit more intriguing: "if to be beloved by our brethren be the great object of our ambition". My initial reaction was 1/it seems strange to me that we can have an ambition of being beloved by others and/or that that could be a positive thing; and 2/that today the word ambition has a negative connotation (albeit only in my mind) or at least a connotation that is not very spiritual. Upon reflection, ambition, just like pride, can be very positive sentiments that can encourage and inspire people to do great things. And just like the 'invisible hand' if it is out of an ambition to be beloved by others that drives you to loving others, as Adam Smith suggests, what could be wrong with that?! For what a wonderful way to end this lovely paragraph, it is not about telling people that you love them but by showing them - by our conduct to show that we really love them.

Love thy neighbor as thyself... do unto others as you would have them do unto you... Adam Smith seems to be giving us another version of the golden rule. What is interesting too is that Adam Smith begins his paragraph in the third person (he, other) but ends it on a collective and more personal note (our).

A wonderful paragraph rich in wonderful sentiments.

And now I suggest that we go out and throw our little pebbles into the big pond...

The Bible - The Old Testament

One of my favorite authors, if not my favorite author, Meir Shalev, wrote a book whose title I could translate from Hebrew into "Firsts" but will apparently appear as In the Beginning: Firsts in the Bible. It is all about firsts mentioned in Genesis. The first love, first kiss, first hate, first murder, first war, first king, first laugh, first dream, first cry, first spy, first prophet, first wise man... A book of firsts which is interesting, especially for anyone who enjoys the Bible, and even more so, for anyone who enjoys literary and/or biblical interpretation. 

For those who know the Old Testament, there are always at least three levels of interpretation for each word, let alone each story. Shalev adds another level of interpretation by implicitly suggesting that each first that appears in the first book about "in the beginning" (the literal translation of Genesis from the Hebrew) has additional importance by the mere fact of it being a first.

An interesting example is that the first love that is mentioned in Genesis is not what you would expect and not when you would expect it. Love appears relatively late in the narrative as it waits for Abraham. And the first love is not what you would expect either. It is not love for God, it is not love for his wife Sarah, it is not love for Agar the servant with whom he had his first son Ismael, it is not for his first born Ismael... The first love that is mentioned is the love of Isaac, his son from Sarah his wife, and it is only mentioned by God when he instructs Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

Chapter 22 of Genesis:

And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and said unto him: 'Abraham'; and he said: 'Here am I.' And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.'

So it is interesting to consider, and Shalev invites us to do so, that no love was mentioned between Adam and Eve, that it wasn't lover's love or a mother's love, but that of a father for his son. And it was neither the son nor the father that mentions it, but rather God. It almost seems like an adjective used to describe Isaac, rather than an appreciation of the love of a father for his son, but there it is nonetheless.

As an aside to this story, and something I had never realized before, but Shalev points out that this event, the very grim pseudo sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, created a significant before-after rift. One of the gifts of the Biblical author(s) is subtlety. In a very subtle manner it is possible to understand without it being said explicitly that Abraham does not go back to Sarah after this and that Abraham and Isaac never live together again.

The rest of the story is also fascinating, with Abraham later sending a servant to help find a wife, Rebecca, for Isaac. But that you will have to read on your own (Genesis chapters 26 and onwards).

With some humor, Shalev announces another first: the first dream. He declares with some sadness that the first dream is not what we would guess either. It is not Jacob's Ladder, in which Angels ascend and descend from Heaven but the dream of a foreign King who dreams of Abraham (then Avram) wife Sarah (then Sarai) who the king wanted to take as a concubine as he was told that she was Avram's sister (Avram was afraid that he would be killed by the king because Sarai was so beautiful)...

The book is full of stories and interesting personal interpretation on Shalev's part. It is a wonderful book, but it is also a wonderful way to rediscover the Old Testament. So many wonderful and rich stories. While the book is wonderful it is even better if you keep a copy of the Old Testament next to your bedside table so as to be able to revisit the original in parallel.

Great literature and inspiration to go back and discover-rediscover Genesis. A wonderful book no matter what belief system you bring with you.

PS Shalev wrote another book on the Old Testament, Bible Now, already in 1985, with personal interpretations of biblical stories.
PS2 Another great book of Meir Shalev's, recently translated into English, About a Pigeon and a Boy, . Wonderful literature. Highly recommended!

[Thoughts on] EnlightenNext magazine

One of my favorite magazines of recent years, or at least one of the only ones that I really try to read cover to cover is EnlightenNext (formerly What is Enlightenment). Recently it appears that they have had financial problems, like much of the printed press, and are now calling for donations, financial support and the like. I am kind of worried about them as most people in a delicate financial situation only make those kinds of requests/announcements late in the game and when they have to.

Already, in the last few years I noticed the increasing use of advertising in their pages and started to wonder about that. Although, to their credit, these have usually been (more or less) spiritually-oriented ads. Which brings me to the real subject (sub-text) of this post: how can you reconcile spirituality with commerciality? (I know that that's not really a word, or at least a regularly-used word, but I am sure you know what I mean). How can you be discussing enlightenment on page 1 and asking for money on page 2? Then again, maybe it is a modern form of (the somewhat medieval) alms - people on a spiritual mission depending on the generosity of strangers for their survival.

And here I go off on another tangent. Alms and living off other people's generosity reminds me of St. Francis of Assisi, one of my favorite religious historical figures. God's little pauper, as Kazantzakis called him, was one of the first well-known (or at least well-documented) renunciates. While he had absolute faith, his acolytes probably had a more difficult time dealing with the day-to-day. As I see a personal letter from the founder of the magazine calling for financial help I must admit I hear more concern and realism than the irrealism born of absolute faith. Which probably means that the rest of the staff is a lot more worried... I do hope that they figure out a solution.

What I read (past tense) between the lines is what got me thinking and what eventually led to this post. It is not easy to reconcile "doing the right thing" (or a good thing) and getting paid for it. We are now in a world in which we expect a lot of things to be free, open source, 24/7, available, shareable, etc. So how can spirituality not be all of that too?

While I don't know if they are considering this, I have a feeling that many of their readers would be willing to pay more for their subscription to see the magazine survive. How much is too much to pay for a unique magazine? Not sure I know the answer to that one, but I do imagine that the price sensitivity of their readership will be less elastic for this magazine than for others.

Finally, getting back to the ads I mentioned earlier. One of the phenomena I have seen on the internet in financial advising, commercial websites, blogs (but not mine, otherwise there would be more than a dozen of you reading this) and now spirituality is something I call "closed-circle expertization". A handful of experts mention a handful of experts, write the testimonials for their books, blogs, courses, conferences, show up as guests in the books, blogs, courses and conferences of each other, are present on the same panels, roundtables and speaking circuits. A kind of cartel in which each boosts the interests of the others in order to boost their own interests. It is a great business model and one that probably evolves more naturally (organically to use the parlance) than most business cartels, but it not less present nonetheless. Such it is with most of the spiritual leaders we read and hear about today - and EnglightenNext's panel of spiritual leaders is not much different.

Nevertheless the quality of the writing, the breadth and depth of articles and spiritual leaders, as well as the themes they explore does make it a magazine well worth reading and thinking about and, now, supporting.

Enjoy! and tell them I sent you ; )

Being spiritual at work

Is difficult...

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?