Category Archives: Pantheism

Darth Vader and Stormtroopers at a Star Wars display during the Disney D23 EXPO 2015 held at the Anaheim Convention Center (Getty Images)

The franchise is a tale of love, sacrifice and fatherhood against hate, domination and tyranny

In our look at prominent anniversaries in 2017, the 40th anniversary of Star Wars bears noting as a significant cultural moment. The series is the most commercially successful movie franchise ever. Later this year, four decades after the first film was released in May 1977, the ninth major motion picture will be released. Its called Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. In any case, it wont be the last film, not by a long shot.

Why has it lasted so long, this series which for generations of children has provided the fantastical architecture of their imaginary play? Despite mediocre writing, it has hosted enduring stars James Earl Jones, Sir Alec Guinness and launched others, such as Harrison Ford.

From the beginning, many fans noted the religious imagery in Star Wars, far too abundant to be accidental. Sir Alec Guinness wore the garb of a monk in his turn as the elderly Obi-Wan Kenobi; Luke Skywalker, when he finally makes it as a Jedi, dresses like a young priest. Darth Vaders helmet is a stylised mitre, all the better to evoke the corrupt bishop he has become. The wicked emperor carries a staff and is attended by a court that includes attendants decked head-to-toe in cardinalatial red. The Jedi temple is a mosque-and-minaret construction. The Force itself is pantheism made palatable for a secular generation that likes to pretend that it is spiritual but not religious. Now, as the saga nears its (supposed) end, the physical setting is actually Skellig Michael, the redoubt of the Irish monks who saved civilisation.

Star Wars endures because it is an ancient story about the deepest human dramas a tale of love, sacrifice and fatherhood on the one hand, and the tragedy of hate, domination and tyranny on the other. It tests which account is a more authentic description of the path to human flourishing.

The central character is Anakin Skywalker, a young boy of preternatural abilities who has no father. The mystery of fatherhood, natural and spiritual, therefore marks the entire saga. The Jedi present the boy with the ideals of honour and duty and sacrifice in which those who have been given much are required to serve the good of all.

As a young man, Anakin rejects his Jedi masters, and the evil Emperor Palpatine offers a different vision to Anakin: those who have been given much have the power to seize more even the ultimate power to create life and cheat death. It is the way of domination, not sacrifice.

Star Wars thus poses a Hegelian question: is the primordial reality the one of the master and the slave? Does man have to choose between being dominant or dominated, in which case the purpose of life and the engine of history is the struggle between those who would be masters and those who would be slaves?

That is the way of the Dark Side, in which the desire to avenge ones own pain fuels the lust for power. Power is the only remedy for pain to hurt others before they can hurt you. In Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, the Emperor attempts to seduce Luke Skywalker, Anakins secret son, to the Dark Side. Luke is invited to kill Vader and take his place at the side of the all-powerful Emperor. It is the Hegelian dynamic of master and slave again. The slave either remains a slave to be destroyed at the masters command, or he kills the master and takes his place. It is the way of the gun or, if you will, the lightsaber.

Show no mercy is the first lesson the Emperor teaches Anakin-cum-Vader in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. There is no room for mercy in the Hegelian master-slave telling of the human story. Kill or be killed it is: the new Lord Vader massacres the innocent younglings in a slaughter that echoes the biblical figures of the Pharaoh and King Herod. Eventually the Emperor makes the same offer to Luke: kill Vader and take his place or be killed. But Vader is Lukes father, so the master-slave dynamic meets the father-son relationship.

It is striking that for a saga saturated with violence, Luke Skywalker survives into this third trilogy because of mercy and the witness of suffering. It is the suffering of the son that inspires the conversion of the father, and Vader turns against the Emperor and destroys him, at the cost of his own life. The show no mercy domination of the tyrant is finally defeated only by the medicine of mercy and the power of filial suffering to move the paternal heart.

St John Paul II observed in Crossing the Threshold of Hope that the only alternative in human relations to the Hegelian master-slave dynamic is the father-son relationship. Either the powerful oppress the weak, as tyrants oppress slaves, or the powerful one sacrifices himself for the weaker, as a father will give his life for his son. This clash of archetypes is at the heart of the Star Wars mythology.

The revelation of the Trinity teaches us that the father-son relationship is more powerful for it lies at the heart of reality. Thus the radiation of fatherhood in St John Pauls words touches all creation, even a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Fr Raymond J de Souza is a priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, and editor-in-chief of Convivium.ca

This article first appeared in the August 4 2017 issue of the Catholic Herald. To read the magazine in full, from anywhere in the world, go here

See the rest here:
Star Wars' religious imagery is more than just coincidence - Catholic Herald Online (blog)

It took six years and approximating death for Wil Wright to make another full-length Senryu record.

The band, which celebrates the release of The Jaws of Life Saturday night at The Pilot Light, has been a part of the East Tennessee music scene for nearly 17 years more than half of Wrights life, ever since he started it in 2000 with percussionist Steven Rodgers, the only remaining original member of the bands lineup. In that period, Wright and Rodgers have grown up, fallen in and out and back in love, entered into marriage (Rodgers earlier this year, Wright later this month) and cobbled together a band thats been solid for nearly seven years now: brothers Andres (a multi-instrumentalist) and guitarist Dan McCormack, and bassist Zac Fallon.

I dont remember a time before Senryu, Wright told The Daily Times recently over brunch at Petes Coffee Shop in downtown Knoxville. I ring at rock n roll records. For me, its just about keeping my brain hungry, about feeding it to help make records I can stand behind and be proud of. And weve made so many Senryu records that doing it a song at a time doesnt really work. The only reason to keep making records is to explore concepts that are interesting to me.

Which brings us to death. Hes spent the past several years thinking about it, ruminations brought on by the natural rate of attrition to the circle of family and friends of a man whos racing toward the apex of life expectancys bell curve. At the outset, Wright said, he felt certain he had it figured out, which in the beginning dictated a different sort of concept. The album was going to be called Perfect Nothing, he added.

I thought I was going to make a real upbeat record about how nothing happens after you die, because thats so much more uplifting, he said. But then I started reading about pantheism and the science behind seeing the tunnel, and what I found was that writing a record about death and finding inspiration is tough. If youre here to talk about it, then you didnt die, so its difficult to do the research. So I started digging into preexisting theories, and I started to imagine a record about the last moments before you die, and the first moments after.

His research eventually led him to a sensory depravation experience in Asheville, N.C., where he was enclosed in a vault containing roughly 1,500 pounds of salt in, at most, 2 feet of water. Completely dark and soundproof, is was the closest to approaching death and the absence of the body as he could find.

Thats as close to nothing as you can get, because once you get settled in, your body vanishes, he said. Your eyes stop working, and everything physical goes. You stop feeling, you stop being aware of your breathing, your eyes stop working, your ears go. Its quiet for a minute, and then it gets really, really loud, because you just become your mind. Reducing it to the ghost in the machine, to the spark to me, thats what I believe death is.

And it left me completely baffled and more clueless than ever. What I figured out is that I dont know s---, but its so much better to admit you dont know and to just be alive.

And so the context of the record began to change. Its meditative and contemplative, which is most certainly the bands wheelhouse; with the McCormacks, Rodgers and Fallon, Wright is given a canvas on which to explore grand ideas through intricate, delicate instrumentation, and if lovely is an acceptable descriptor for Senryu, then it applies to Night of the Twisters, the albums lead-off track. But the band sheds whatever emo tendencies it may occasionally flirt with on songs like Heaven Can Wait, Dream of Nothing and the howling maelstrom that is Summer Death March, a too-painful-to-look-away tale of madness and breakdown. Wright has never flinched away from documenting his emotional turmoil through song, and while his other projects LiL iFFy and Skeleton Coast, to name a few have been personal ones, none have allowed him to document the journey of his own existence like Senryu.

This was a three-year album making process, and when the title changed, the record stopped being about the stopping and became more about the continuation, he said. The body is the wrecked car, and the end pulls whatevers left out and keeps it going. Over the course of this record, I experienced a personality death six or seven times; I was getting my perspective rocked about the death of self and rebirth, and the constant through it all was, Im making this record.

Continue reading here:
Senryu pries open 'The Jaws of Life' to explore death on latest ... - Maryville Daily Times

Two weeks ago, we introduced the concept of a worldview, our set of assumptions about the way that the world works, explaining that all worldviews answer the following questions:

What is the nature of the world around us?

Why can we know anything?

How do we determine right and wrong?

What is the meaning of human history?

Last week, I analyzed the Naturalist worldview, explaining that how you answer question number one will determine how you answer question number two and so on and so forth.

I encouraged our readers to have a cohesive worldview because what we believe shapes how we live.

This week, I want to answer the above questions from a Christian perspective.

Christianity defines the essence of reality as coming from God. God always has been and always will be.

He is infinite and transcendent, completely separate and uniquely different from everything else (this is what the word holy actually means), yet at the same time, he is personal.

In the Bible, God is pictured as intimately breathing life into humanity. He is all knowing, all powerful, all present (which is different from being in all things as Pantheism embraces) and is in control of all things (sovereign).

Ultimately, He is good. Every time God creates in the first chapter of the Bible, he proclaims that his creation is good. Only a good God could make good things.

The nature of the world around us is one of a created order. God is outside of our box and has spoken, without ingredients, our existence into reality. He created everything from nothing. Additionally, He is orderly. In Genesis 1, He creates canisters and then fills canisters.

He creates the sky before filling it with birds. He creates plants before creating animals so that they have something to eat.

This underscores that he is wise, orderly, powerful, generous and good. Since God created, He is outside of our sandbox yet involved within it.

This means that the supernatural is possible. At any time he can put his finger in the sand and swirl things around.

Humans are created in Gods image. This means that we share in his characteristics which are able to be shared.

Since God is Creator, we can be creative, being called to create art, culture, language and so much more. We are personal, just like our God is personal and intimate.

We share in some transcendence, being separate from other types of the created world. We can learn, we can know right from wrong, we desire community and so much more. These attributes exist in us because they exist in God.

According to the scriptures, underscoring the reality that by chapter three of the first book in the Bible mankind rejects God and willfully enters into rebellion against him, upon death we either eternally enter into perfect relationship with him or are eternally separated from him.

This is a byproduct of our relational status with God, which is only established by faith in the God provided rescuer, Jesus Christ.

We can know anything at all because we are made in the image of an all-knowing God.

Because of Gods goodness and character made manifest through his creation, we can learn through empirical research, discover new concepts, invent new machines, and so on and so forth. Still, we cannot discover all things.

There are secret things, which belong to God, and we can only know in part (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As such, God reveals to us what he wants us to know. Since he is outside of our sandbox, he has to reveal certain things to us, and there are still some things that we will never know.

Ultimately, God has given us a glimpse past our own deductive abilities through his special revealed knowledge, revelation, which is found in Jesus Christ and in the Bible.

As created beings, we are subject to a created order and absolute standards of morality and ethics.

Gods good character is the standard of ethics, not our emotions or what we believe is good for society.

God knows best, yet we routinely reject his revealed path and his revealed ethical standards in exchange for our own ideas and design. This is what led to mankinds rejection and rebellion in Genesis 3, where the first humans did not want to go to God for the definition of good and evil but wanted to craft it for themselves.

All of that said, history is not accidental nor is it aimless. It is a linear, sequential, unfolding story of God. and it is leading towards a specific aim and purpose.

History is meaningful because it is Gods story, ultimately pointing to Jesus Christ, the one who came to rescue humanity from itself, and to the redemption of Gods people.

Do you have a question about life, family, or faith for Pastor Bill? Email RevolveNJ@gmail.com with the subject Ask Pastor Bill and your question.

Follow this link:
Is Your Christian Worldview Cohesive? - Cape May County Herald

(Princeton University Press) US: Jun 2017

The period of European modern philosophy covered in this clever and informative new book was unusually fertile. From roughly 1600 to 1700, significant philosophical positions were articulated by the likes of Rene Descartes, Bento (Baruch) Spinoza, Gottfried Liebniz, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton, and many others. Barring the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece, this might be the most intellectually fruitful era in all of philosophy.

In this telling of the story of modern philosophy, esteemed historian of philosophy Steven Nadler, who has previously authored or edited academic books on Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes, Nicolas Malebranche, Antoine Arnauld, and Jewish modern philosophy, teams with his son, illustrator Ben Nadler, to turn these complex theories into a visual journey through the history of ideas. The focus here tends to be on the scientific (Bacon, Newton, Galileo) and the epistemological/ metaphysical (Leibnizs monads, Spinozas pantheism, Cartesian knowledge and mind-body dualism) although some of the most significant developments in ethics and political philosophy (including Hobbess theory of government, Spinozas views on democracy, and Lockes influential views on property) get some coverage as well.

This story of modern ideas unfolds in the style of a comic book, with chapters (usually centered around a thinker and his critics) divided into panels on each page. The panels are generally limited to six or fewer per page, with each panel featuring expository passages and/or dialogue between these characters from the period.

Ben Nadlers art is colorful and expressive, and he has taken some pains to make these figures look like their classic depictions from historical art. Leibniz, for example, is drawn with impressively poodle-like hair and a prominent nose, much like the Christoph Bernhard Francke portrait from the early 1700s. However, Nadlers art softens their stern features and makes them more approachable and fun. By adding in plenty of humorous moments to their livesfrom Descartes , a thinking thing by definition, with a giant brain (26) to a Cartesian mind-body picnic (39) echoing the Bart Sells His Soul episode of The Simpsonsthe reader gets to laugh at some of these clever intuition pumps and thought experiments.

The anachronistic Disco Malebranche (109), for example, offers an explanation for the notoriously counter-intuitive theory of occasionalism, the view that God is the only cause and that all other apparently self-directed things (like a leisure-suit bedecked Malebranche in a disco) are moved only by the occasional decision of God to move them. Im not sure how many professors have ever used disco dancing to explain occasionalism, but it is a clever and resourceful way to present an idea that students usually respond to with blank stares and open mouths.

The combination of comic art and complex ideas is particularly helpful with some of the more arcane and confusing theories presented here. Take, for example, Leibnizs metaphysical monadology, always a head-scratcher for intro students (95-99). In the care of Nadler and Nadler, the puzzle of corporal substances and Leibnizs solution, windowless monads, is presented in a clear, visual manner that includes a cat, a volcano, a shark, and Leibniz himself. It sounds puzzling, but it makes sense, with brief and deft explanations paired with eye-catching illustrations. Spinozas solution to the mind-body problem, and the pantheism (or panentheism) that is entailed by it on pages 58-63 is another case where the illustrations serve to illuminate an often puzzling theoretical view, tying Spinozas view to Hamlets pondering of fate and free will. Its skillfully explained and depicted, and in five short pages, the view that led Spinoza to be branded a heretic is laid bare.

One of the more interesting questions this book leaves open is a meta-textual one: who or what is the intended audience? It crosses the borderlines between popular philosophy, general introduction, and academic text. It might, for example, serve as a useful introductory text (supplemented by some of the source works) for a course in modern philosophy, particularly for students with no background in philosophy at all. Its an excellent text for a non-academic audience, although the ideas and concepts discussed probably require at least a little knowledge of religious and political history. It might, with some scaffolding, be useful for younger readers who are trying to wrap their minds around the development of philosophical views in general.

The narrative arc of this story of modern philosophy is bound up in Spinozas abominable heresies and monstrous deeds (as the Herem against him claimed) and the so-called heresies of many of these modern philosophers, who shared both intellectual endeavors and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Conflicts and challenges between these figures, including bad blood between philosophers, schisms between iterations of faith, and political upheavals, dot the terrain of modern philosophy. Almost all of these figures had at least one view that was considered a heresy in the eyes of some other key figure or institution, and this willingness to put forth challenges to the prevailing views is part of the identity of philosophy in the modern era.

Given the heretical arc, it is very fitting that the book ends with an epilogue focused on Voltaires Candide. Voltaires brilliant satire took the intellectual gymnastics of modern philosophy, particularly that of Gottfried Leibnizs famous Best of All Possible Worlds theodicy, to the woodshed and gave them a beat-down. This is not to say that Nadler is trying to jump into the frayhis portrayal of these philosophical views is tempered and charitable, but also critical and questioning. Voltaire took philosophers to task, but Nadler gives them their due.

They might be heretics, but we owe them (and ourselves) the intellectual honesty to take their ideas seriously before moving on to those ideas that are less threatening and more comfortable. Its a lesson sorely lacking in our current intellectual culture, and this lovely introduction helps to present it in a historically relevant way.

Rating:

Eric Rovie teaches high school AP English in suburban Atlanta. He has also contributed to The A.V. Club and to several Chunklet publications. In his previous iteration, he was an academic philosopher and he might have edited a book and published a few articles. Originally from the Twin Cities, he worships at the altars of The Replacements, Hsker D, and The Hold Steady, as any good son of the Cities should. He re-reads The Catcher in the Rye at least once a year, but he has never tried to assassinate anyone.

Read the original here:
'Heretics!' Illustrates the Contentiousness Surrounding Philosophy - PopMatters

According to Daniel B. Schwartz in his study of The First Modern Jew the historian is referring to Baruch Spinoza as that trailblazer he discusses the descendants of German-Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, who was influenced by the heretic of Amsterdam. Of Mendelssohns six children, Schwartz writes, four converted [to Christianity], all following their fathers death in 1786. Of his grandchildren, only one went to his grave as a Jew.

Was Mendelssohns philosophy responsible for the conversions to Christianity of his descendants? The blame of the mass apostasy of Mendelssohns descendants does rest, for some, on his philosophy. There is precedent for this assessment in the work of historian Yitzhak Fritz Baer in his dichotomy between Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews. Baer, a German Jew who made his mark of brilliance at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, blamed the conversion of Jews to Catholicism in Spain on their study of Aristotelian philosophy which, the historian believed, weakened their spiritual resolve. This was opposed to the Talmud-centered folk piety of medieval Ashkenazi Jews who chose martyrdom rather than conversion.

Many centuries before Baer in Muslim Spain, Hebrew poet Judah Halevi argued in his Kuzari that Revelation as an historical event dispensed with the need to reconcile Torah and Aristotle. But one could argue that Moses Mendelssohn was not Moses Maimonides, that 18th century Berlin was not medieval Cairo, and that the attempt by Mendelssohn to confront Kant led to a Jewish crisis worse than the Jewish struggle over Rambams philosophical works. For an early modern thinker like Catholic theologian and mathematician Blaise Pascal there was only one choice: Not the God of the philosophers but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But that is only part of the picture. While Mendelssohns philosophy was certainly the outcome of a confrontation with the German Enlightenment, it was not a radical rejection of Judaism in fact, it was an heroic defense of the Jewish faith and Mendelssohn remained an observant Jew his whole life. His classic work of Jewish philosophy, Jerusalem (1783), is conservative and careful and a far cry from the pantheism of Spinoza. In this work, Mendelssohn argues that Kant and the German Enlightenments understanding of Judaism are warped. Rather than viewing Judaism as coercive laws and superstitions that in no way elevates the individual morally, ethically or spiritually, Mendelssohn argues that it is Judaism that is a revealed legislation and not a revealed religion.

Mendelssohn is no atheist and, in fact, he argues that Judaism is the epitome of the Religion of Reason, purged of the dogma and superstition that dominated Christianity.

He is on the mark despite the fact that he reinterprets the nature of Revelation in a way that would not please traditionalists.

Mendelssohn seems to neutralize that nature of the Covenant based on the relationship between God and Gods Chosen People. Still, he argues against religious coercion and for religious tolerance and is brave enough to confront those who would demean Judaism and he would defend Judaism against Christianity. I do not see, at first glance, how this would lead to apostasy.

It seems just the opposite.

A more cogent argument is a social one.

Mendelssohns involvement in Prussian society, being dubbed the German Socrates, broke down the barriers which for centuries separated Jews from the non-Jewish majority. Mendelssohns acceptance by the German Enlightenment and especially by his close friend G.E. Lessing integrated the Jewish philosopher into a modern world he would not have know of had he been born 50 years earlier. The pressure on Mendelssohn by Christians to convert was intense and he had the fortitude to reject these calls. His children did not have that fortitude.

Under the pressure of Prussian society they were unable to resist the temptation to abandon their fathers modern approach to Revelation and instead abandoned Judaism.

Indeed, as described by historian Daniel B.

Schwartz, in the period in Berlin from 1750 to 1830 there was a wave of Jews who converted to Christianity. Among Berlins Jewish elite there was an epidemic of baptism. Heinrich Heine, born a Jew, the greatest German lyric poet of the 19th century, converted to Lutheranism, in part for professional reasons.

Throughout Germanic lands baptism was required to teach in universities or gain a professional position in the law. While I came down hard on Rachel Varnhagen and her salon that brought together Jews and Christians in the elite, my harshest criticism was that after her conversion she seemed to embrace a sincere Christianity. But for Jewish converts like Heine, baptism opened doors of opportunity that were closed for Jews. So the epidemic of baptism could have little to do with religious faith and much to do with Jews achieving success in Berlin in that period of discrimination.

Still, the conversions do not only have their roots in Jews getting ahead in Christian society. For many of the Jewish elite in Berlin the embrace of Christianity was an act of religious and intellectual conviction.

Abraham Mendelssohn a son of the great philosopher and a deist and rationalist, raised his children as Lutherans. In a July 1820 letter to his daughter, Abraham Mendelssohn seemed to both reject the influence of the legacy of his own father but also seemed to follow in a logical path of conversion where the philosopher could lead the Jew: The outward form of your religion your teacher has given you is historical, and changeable like all human ordinances.

Some thousands of years ago the Jewish form was the reigning one, then the heathen form, and now it is the Christian. We, your mother and I, were born and brought up by our parents as Jews, and without being obliged to change the form of our religion have been able to follow the divine instinct in us and in our conscience. We have educated you and your brothers and sister in the Christian faith, because it is the creed of most civilized people, and contains nothing can lead you away from what is good, and much that guides you to love, obedience, tolerance, and resignation, even if it offered nothing but the example of its founder, understood by so few, and followed by still fewer.

Heinrich Heine writes that the baptismal certificate is the ticket of admission to European culture. This indicates that the worldview of Abraham Mendelssohn, Rachel Varnhagen and Heine was rooted in the inferiority of Judaism to German culture. Heines conversion to Lutheranism was not simply practical but psychological.

Heine, in an early poem, equated Judaism with disease. This was not the outlook of Moses Mendelssohn he was raised in an observant environment with exposure to the great works of Jewish literature and theology.

For Mendelssohns son to explain that Judaism was only relevant 2,000 years ago and that one could reach goals of spirituality and ethics in the Christianity of the Enlightenment is an insult to his fathers faith. The argument for tolerance of all religion does not mean that all religions are equal. There is a rich heritage of Jewish polemics throughout the ages that argued for the superiority of Judaism. To understand the fundamental principles of Christianity and Islam in no way levels the playing field. The deists were wrong: Yahweh is not Christ is not Allah.

While Abraham Mendelssohn certainly did not understand the founder of Christianity as a Son of God in a way a traditional Lutheran would understand, there is no doubt that his fathers philosophy of tolerance for all religion weakened his sons perception that Judaism was still a vital faith and Christianity stood in opposition based on detail and dogma. G.E. Lessing, a close confidante of Moses Mendelssohn, expresses the equality of all religion as emanating from one source in his play praising his Jewish friend titled Nathan the Wise (1779). Mendelssohn believed in separation of church and state and emancipation.

At a time when the greatest German Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant, was discussing the euthanizing of Judaism as an outmoded and unethical superstition, Moses Menddelssohn spoke out bravely for the integrity of Judaism in the world of the European Enlightenment.

But his break with Jewish theology and tradition as understood by Jews living apart from non-Jews in the ancient and medieval world and their belief that their faith was divine in origin and their religion superior to other faiths created a slippery slope from which Modern Judaism would not recover.

Have Jews died with the Shema on their lips because a God of Reason revealed legislation to them on Mount Sinai? Was Judah Halevi right? Perhaps, the national and historical experience at Sinai was not a rational experience that needs to be reconciled with Athenian or Kantian or Hegelian philosophy. This is not to negate the great tradition of Jewish philosophy and its confrontation with the surrounding world. But divine legislation is sterile and banal and will only inspire the elite of the Haskala. Or in the case of the German Enlightenment lead Jews away from Judaism.

That his children and his followers interpreted his words in their own way often at odds with traditional Judaism, even embracing apostasy does not mean that there were many other social and psychological factors that weakened the resolve of the Jews of Berlin. In Jerusalem, the philosopher stated: Adapt yourselves to the morals and the constitution of the land to which you have been removed; but hold fast to the religion of your fathers. It seems too often in the modern Diaspora that Mendelssohns call for integration into non-Jewish society far outweighs holding fast to 3,500 years of profound texts and traditions.

(The text of Abraham Mendelssohns letter to his daughter can be found in The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History edited by Paul Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, Second Edition.) The author is rabbi of Congregation Anshei Sholom in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Share on facebook

Go here to see the original:
Mendelssohn's philosophy, Mendelssohn's grandchildren - The Jerusalem Post

Ideological warriors like Dina Nath Batra should have no part to play, no influence to wield in the writing of Indian textbooks or on the content of the national syllabus. As a reporter, I met Batra in 2014 when Penguin India, to general bemusement, agreed to pulp extant copies of scholar Wendy Doniger's award-winning book The Hindus: An Alternative History.

I went to the school he ran in southwest Delhi and he proved, for the record, to be a genial companion. He is a man of considerable experience and achievement. But he is, without question, a crank.

Our discussion, apart from Batra's digressions into the existence of nudist colonies in Calfornia, mostly centred around the lack of cultural education imparted to Indian schoolchildren. But no one who is thinking critically would accept Batra's version of Indian culture and history. His myriad objections to passages in books amount to one overall objective - a desire to eliminate complexity.

And India and Hindu culture is nothing if not complex. As the reviled Doniger notes, there is no "single authoritative or essentialist view of what Hinduism is". Any one version, she writes, "of this polythetic polytheism (which is also a monotheism, a monism, and a pantheism), including this one, is no better than a strobe photograph of a chameleon, a series of frozen images giving a falsely continuous image of something that is in fact constantly changing."

Batra's desire to "Indianise"our children's education means force-feeding them RSS-sanctioned pabulum. No wonder, the Indian Express reports, that his organisation has written to NCERT to demand the excision of thoughts by the likes of Rabindranath Tagore.

Batra's organisation has written to NCERT to demand the excision of thoughts by the likes of Rabindranath Tagore.

A sample passage, from a Class 12 textbook, that Batra wants removed: In this system the status was probably determined by birth. They (Brahmins) tried to make people realise that their prestige was based on birth such parameters were often strengthened by stories in many books like The Mahabharata. Of course, Batra objects to any passage that suggests some Mughal leaders may have been open-minded, even tolerant.

The point is not that textbooks are infallible, it is that they should be ring-fenced from the political prejudices of the day. Textbooks, whatever the interpretations of their authors, should be largely based on verifiable fact and academic consensus. Of course, academic consensus can shift or change, and so emphases might change in textbooks from one generation to another. But better subtle inflections in emphasis than wholesale rejections of historical fact.

And while a good lesson for our children might be that textbooks should be questioned, that reading for oneself outside the prescribed text is the key to critical thinking, it's probably best if we don't fill textbooks with the dodgy meanderings of discredited ideologues in the first place.

Batra should not be taken seriously because he is not a disinterested academic. He is, for all intents and purposes, an activist. But he appears to have the ruling party's ear. More worryingly, the ruling party's vision for Indian schooling appears to be one of quasi-martial discipline, a false sense of cultural superiority, and scant room for questions or doubt. Batra is prejudiced and narrow-minded. He and his ilk must be resisted, by parents in particular.

Indian schooling, at all levels, is appalling. Year after year, surveys show that Indian children are not being taught basic skills, including reading at age-appropriate levels. As with much else, the divide is growing between those who can buy their children the necessary skills and those forced to rely on government schools. But the likes of Batra should concern us all because he wants to deny an essential part of what it is to be Indian: diversity - in language, in viewpoints, in religious belief, and thought.

Urdu and English words, for instance, tell us something about our history. In the prologue to India After Gandhi, Ramachandra Guha wrote that, "Because they are so many, and so various, the people of India are also divided." He used a verse from Ghalib to make his point, the same Ghalib who Batra would see struck off the syllabus.

Tagore, whose views on patriotism as opposed to humanity Batra so abhors, described nationalism as "carnivorous and cannibalistic." And what nationalism regurgitates, the indistinguishable mess it makes of the guts of our history, softened by chewing, is what Batra wants us to swallow.

Our past cannot be wished away, cannot be replaced by imagined glory. Instead, what we need is the opposite of what Batra and his saffron-clad colleagues want: not a simple narrative, but a more complicated one; not an unquestioning perspective but a critical one; and not shallow patriotism but a deeper love for our country founded on an understanding of our syncretic culture.

Textbooks are being rewritten. Is it too much to hope that the basis should be academic, not political or ideological?

Also read: BJP distorting history: Savarkar outshines Gandhi in Rajasthan textbooks

Here is the original post:
Why Dina Nath Batra wants Tagore, Urdu, Mughals removed from school books - DailyO

(by Ben Rothke)

Learn a few pages in the Mishnah Berurah and youll come to the phrase hamachmir tavo alav bracha. While the Chofetz Chaim didnt coin the phrase, he made it his calling card. He will accept an opinion, but commend those who want to be strict. These stringencies apply throughout Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, even though most of the topics do not deal with potential capital crimes.

Had the Chofetz Chaim written on Yoreh Deah hilchos Avodah Zara, I think its safe to say the phrase would be pervasive.

In a new book, Alternative Medicine in Halachah, Rabbi Rephoel Szmerla attempts to make the halakhic case for alternative medical treatments. Its a heavy tome; 11 English-language chapters and about 400 pages of Hebrew appendixes.

Yet in close to 200 pages, I was struck by the fact that never once does Szmerla use hamachmir tavo alav bracha. This is noteworthy given that avoda zara is one of the 3 prohibitions one must give up their live rather than violating.

Some of the therapies to which the book details the practical halacha include:

Remote healing Reiki Acupuncture Kinesiology Dowsing Homeopathy and flow essences Gem therapy Geobiology and Feng Shiu Hypnotherapy Yoga Therapeutic touch Shamanic healing

Szmerla is a proponent of these alternative therapies. Hes been involved with so-called energy medicine for twenty years and is something of an evangelist for this cause. For this reason, his devotion to this project, perhaps, the author struggled to provide a cogent rationale for his arguments. He also represents a curious trend among some elements of the Orthodox Right to declaim modern science as wisdom. The sinuous logic often takes some unorthodox and untraditional turns.

A Scientific Halakhist?

The failure centers on the authors attempt to be the medical and halakhic expert. This was not a challenge for some of the twentieth centurys leading halakhic authorities. For example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein frequently called on the scientific knowledge of his son-in-law Rabbi Moshe Tendler, who had received his Ph.D. in microbiology from Columbia University. In Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach relied on experts in biology and physics when addressing halakhic issues related to these fields.

But it is troubling in this more recent project. While he quotes extensively from myriad new age sources, Szmerla does not reference any non-alternative scientists or medical doctors. What is more, the books bibliography lists a mere 29 citations, none of which are science-based works. The result is a goodly number of botched scientific proofs and impreciseor wrongterminologies. One example is his equating data and evidence as being the same.

Sometimes, the scholarship just does not back up the claim. For instance, an aura, according to new age thought is an emanation that encloses a human body. However, the myth-buster Joe Nickell writes that tests to observe alleged aura emanations have repeatedly met with failure. Nonetheless, Szmerla writes that it is worthwhile to note that there exists scientific data supporting the existence of the aura.

Rabbinic Authority

Its not just Szmerlas understanding of science that is lacking, his disdain for the halakhic process and understanding of the nature of halakhic development are also quite troubling. His portrayal of the rabbis of the Talmud deserves specific mention. Szmerla portrays rabbis of the Talmud as gullible. He writes that halachic determinations do not require the rigorous evidence of scientific double-blind studies. This is plainly crass, ignoring the fruitful scholarship conducted by Rabbi Nahum Rabinovitch, among others. The rabbis of the Talmud certainly didnt use a chi-squared test or regression and correlation analysis as we know it, they did operate with sophisticated levels of statistical analysis, the best of what was known to them in their time.

To boot, Szmerlas proof for this criticism is rather simplistic. For example, he notes that in the eyes of the Torah, any phenomenon that has been validated three times is considered authentic. He is referring to the Talmud in Shabbat 61a that discusses when amulets are to be approved as medical devices. He takes a discussion limited to amulets and applies it to all medical therapies. In any system, be it legal, mathematical, or theological, one cant take a limited item; and pro forma apply it globally.

Further, Szmerlas methods are precarious from a practical halakhic perspective. He assumes to know exactly what the Talmud is discussing, and can precisely correlate it to a particular new age therapy. Contrast that with the notion that the Talmud states in Shabbat 35a: that we are not experts in identifying medium-sized stars to determine nightfall. If we cant expertly identify the size of the stars in the sky, its hard to understand how he can know the specific new age therapy. Yet, Szmerla does exactly that. For example, the Talmud in Horayot 12a discusses the concept of a babuah di-babuah, a shadow of a shadow. Szmerla writes that this description is identical to the description of the aura given by energy healing practitioners, a therapy he therefore allows.

He also ignores notions of rabbinic consensus and debate. In the foreword, Rabbi Shmuel Meir Katz of Lakewood writes that a hallmark of a genuine moreh horaah is the intellectual honesty to examine an issue from various standpoints and the capability to honestly evaluate dissenting opinions. Yet, one of the most egregious problems with Szmerlas approach is that he does not significantly reference those dissenting opinions. He writes that there is scientific data to support his findings, but much of his data is based on vibrational medicine, to which a 2008 study by noted researcher Edzard Ernst found that the evidence is not fully convincing for most complementary and alternative medicine modalities.

Finally, he writes the efficacy of homeopathy has been well-established. That simply is not true. No large-scale study has found homeopathy any more effective than a placebo. Yet that assertion is what allows him to permit ineffectual therapies, as he believes that any phenomenon that has been validated three times is considered authentic. With enough of a sample size, its easy to get three cases of anything. Science would call that the placebo effect. Szmerla would call that authentic.

An Orthodox Counterculture

Looked at more broadly, this book reflects disturbing trends in some subculture elements of Orthodoxy to disdain modern science and certain medical developments and to engage new age therapies.

Why the opposition? For Szmerla, modern science is not God-focused. He contrasts the opinions of atheistic scientists with those of the creators of alternative therapies, who he feels realize that their healing powers originate from the Divine. Both characterizations are overly generalized, and his simplistic observation does nothing to support his claims. The author does not explain why alternative therapies, which may have their ancient roots in Krishna or Vishnu, may be more acceptable or effective than those from non-believing scientists and doctors such as Linus Pauling or Franois Jacob.

What Hath the New Age Movement Done to Us?

The New Age movement, with its acceptance of occult practices, pantheism, and a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas that is inclusive and pluralistic is anathema to halakhah. Rabbi Szmerlas book, I fear, reflects a trend within some parts of the Orthodox Right to eschew modern science and contemporary medicine.

This comes at a significant cost. The authors weltanschauung leads him to be a promulgator of bad science while misrepresenting Chazal. The danger with Alternative Medicine in Halachah is that the author oversimplifies both halakhah and the often-complex fields of science and medicine. This leads to his acquiescence to therapies that other major poskim outright forbid. Perhaps more disturbing than the poor scholarship in this book, is the underlying trend it illustrates.

Ben Rothke lives in New Jersey and works in the information security field. He blogs about information security at The Security Meltdown and is the associate editor of the Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective. He writes technology book reviews for Security Management, and reviews of books on Jewish thought for The Jewish Press, The Lehrhaus and Times of Israel.

See the original post:
A Critical Look At A New Sefer: Alternative Medicine in Halachah - Yeshiva World News

Indias prime minister Narendra Modi met President Trump for the first time last week.

Modi and Trump are similar in many ways: both are populist nationalists who draw large crowds, and both are dedicated to putting their countries first, economically and strategically. Yet while Modi is wildly popular among the Hindu-American community in the United States, Trump did not even get a tenth of its vote. Why is it that Hindu-Americans, a group so favorably disposed toward a right-wing Indian leader, voted overwhelmingly against the candidate from the right in the United States?

Hindu-Americans are a high-income, family-values oriented group, yet vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. This paradox can be explained by the nature of Hinduism as a religion, Indias historical social, cultural, and agricultural patterns, and Indias experience with British colonialismall factors that influence Hindu-Americans to vote for the Democratic Party.

While Hindu-Americans are one of the largest religious groups in the United States, they do not yet have the clout, influence, or even general public recognition that other large religious groups in the country have, such as Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, though there are advocacy groups such as the non-partisan Hindu American Foundation (HAF).

Perhaps this is because they have been taken for granted as a Democratic Party voting bloc. According to data from the Washington Post, fewer than 7 percent of Hindus are likely to have voted for Trump. Only a slightly larger percentage of Hindus voted for Mitt Romney. Hindus strongly favor the Democratic party over the Republican partymore so than almost any other ethnic or religious group in the United States.

According to data collected by Pew in 2015, there are now 2.23 million Hindus in the United States, making them the fourth largest religious group in the country after Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Hinduism belongs to a family of religions known as Indic or dharmic religions. Hinduism is the largest dharmic tradition in the United States. Two other dharmic religions also have large populations in the United States: Sikhism, with around 500,000 individuals, and Jainism, with around 180,000 adherents. There are also large populations of Muslims and Christians from the Indian subcontinent in the United States. Approximately 16 percent of Muslims in the United States are from South Asia (around 600,000 people). Additionally, there are smaller populations of Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) from South Asia in the United States.

Hindu-Americans have the highest retention of any religion in the United States, with a full 80 percent of those raised Hindu still identifying with Hinduism as adults. In comparison, the rate among mainline Protestants is only 45 percent. This is not surprising due to the nature of Hinduism, whose philosophical and cultural traditions encompass several religious viewpoints including monism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, monotheism, polytheism, and atheism. Most Hindus are either immigrants or the children of immigrants from India, Nepal, Guyana, and Suriname, although there are some from non-desi (South Asian) backgrounds.

Given this diversity, how can we explain the fact that Hindu-Americans political preferences and social norms generally point them in the direction of liberal politics in the United States? After all, as The American Conservatives executive editor Pratik Chougule has pointed out, Indian-American (including Hindu-American) economic interests, merit-based educational aspirations, and family-values are much more aligned with the Republican Party.

There are several factors that explain Hindu-Americans mentality, political patterns and views on economic and social issues.

There is the nature of Hinduism itself. The worldview of Hinduism is different from the Judeo-Christian tradition that often informs the right in the West, though it has many more commonalities with the Greco-Roman pagan tradition. Hinduism advocates a live and let live attitude toward theological viewpoints. Its plethora of customs, philosophical systems, and regional traditions embrace diverse ways of understanding the divine, as well as ordering life in this world. Hinduism is the collective wisdom of sages, seekers, gods, and kings accumulated over several thousands of years. In short, it is not monolithic. Hinduism says that people take multiple spiritual paths and reach the same goal: the paths of knowledge, action, devotional worship, and meditation. The Rig Veda, composed over 4,000 years ago, states:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varua, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmn.

To what is One, sages call by many names they call it Agni, Yama, Mtarivan.

(Rig Veda 1.164.46)

This can be reworked for the modern world and would still be valid under the Hindu perspective: They call him Bhagavan, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and he is heavenly, shining Krishna. To what is One, sages give many a title Ohrmazd, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, Amaterasu. This means:

In the Indian belief, no one religion can have a monopoly on truth. A common Indian metaphor, about blind men and an elephant, tells of how some blind men touch different parts of an elephant, and then compare notes to find that they are in complete disagreement about the shape of the elephant. The analogy, which is with religion, argues that only by putting together the experiences of all the blind men (individual religions) will gain us an approximate understanding of the whole (truth).

In the realm of earthly action, the duty of humans is defined by dharma, a word that is difficult to translate but whose shades of meaning include righteousness, duty, calling, and order. The Mahabharata tells us that dharma is subtle, and as such, doing the right thing in a certain situation is often circumstantial. However, the concept is usually linked to duty. To do ones dharma is to do ones duty to the utmost, which is why suggestions by some Republicans that Hinduism doesnt align with the constitutional foundation of the U.S. government, or that Hinduism is a false faith with false gods, are deeply problematic to the Hindu community. Observant Hindus dont necessarily agree with the secular, materialistic worldview that characterizes many on the left, but they see the Democratic Party as less hostile to the Hindu tradition than the Republican Party.

Two prominent Indian-Americans, Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana, and Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, are both converts from their respective religions (Hinduism and Sikhism) to Christianity and are thus not really strong advocates for Indian religions. Bobby Jindal in particular has acquired a reputation for trying to disassociate himself from his roots. Because of the nature of Hinduism, it is difficult for many Hindus to understand why someone would want to leave the religion. Most Hindus do not appreciate Christian evangelization because Indian identity is strongly linked to religion (relative to say, Chinese identity, which is more ethnic and linguistic).

On the other hand, there are four Hindus in Congress, all of whom are Democrats. Hindu-Americans have an especially strong advocate in U.S. Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). She was the first Hindu-American elected to Congress, and has since been a staunch champion and advocate of Hindu causes. She was instrumental in bringing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the United States.

Hinduism is already an eclectic tradition; American Hinduism is even more so. Many young second or third generation Hindus also identify primarily as Hindu, although in a different way than first generation immigrants. Older Hindus are more ritualistic and temple-oriented. Younger Hindus, particularly those born in the United States, either see their Hinduism as more of a tribal badge and are cultural Hindus or are more interested in Hinduism as a philosophy, or a collection of metaphorical lessonsan interest they often discover through their own study of ancient Hindu texts with universal application, including the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, and Mahabharata. This newer Hinduism is in contrast to a more traditional and conservative Hinduism, which is often a reflection of factors specific to pre-modern Indian culture and history, and more influenced by later Hindu literature, the shastras (codebooks relating to rules and conduct) and puranas (traditional lore and myths). This individualistic, non-institutional approach resembles the spiritual but not religious approach toward religion often adopted by individuals less in tune with their religious traditions; in other words, people who are non-conservative in their attitude toward religion.

If religious issues are taken out of the picture, it would seem that Hindu-Americans potentially have a lot in common with a more conservative worldview. Affirmative action and higher taxes both hurt Hindu-American communities. Most Hindu-Americans are well-educated, legal immigrants who have waited their turn to enter the United States. Additionally, some Hindu-Americans are not favorably disposed toward Muslim immigration due to centuries-old tensions between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia. Yet Hindu-Americans lean toward Democrats on many non-religious issues as well.

On the topics of immigration and civil rights, because most Hindu-Americans are Indian-Americansa minority in the United States whose descendants were once subject to British colonialismcombating racism (real or perceived) is particularly important to Hindu-Americans. Hindus and Muslims are, so to say, on the same side in the United States, as they might not be distinguishable to the European-American population. This predisposition for racial grievance among Indians can be taken to absurd lengths by second-generation Hindus (and Indians), many of whom drinkup the more extreme kool-aid of identity politics on college campuses. Because of the perception that the Democratic Party is more friendly toward immigrants, civil rights, and non-Western cultures, many Hindus support the party en masse in a tribalistic manner. On a related note, Hindu-Americans also want more legal, educated immigration for their kinfolk back in India; any scheme to curb H-1B visas is met with hostility on the part of the Hindu-American community, particularly because they contend that allowing more Indians into the country would be to the advantage of the United States.

The support of most Hindu-Americans for the Democratic Party in the United States is not necessarily tied to support for left-wing or right-wing politics in the American sense. Many Hindu Democratic voters in the United States are also strong supporters of the right-wing, Hindu-nationalist party currently in power in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The partys name means the Indian Peoples Party. Yet conservatism in the Indian sense is not particularly related to the American classical liberal tradition of individualism and small-government, although the right in India is generally more business-friendly than the left. The guiding philosophy of the BJP is Integral Humanism, an ideology that sees humans as both spiritual and material beings and seeks a compromise between capitalism and socialism. This philosophy resembles theories of Catholic economics and the One-Nation conservatism found in Britain that views society as organic and values paternalism and pragmatism; in the United States, some Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower had similar views. Very few Hindu-Americans, including business-friendly and socially conservative ones, identity with the Republican orthodoxy that emphasizes cutting taxes and services and reducing the size of government. It is an alien ideology to the Indian tradition, despite Indians being the single wealthiest Asian-American group in the United States in terms of median income.

In the Indian tradition, it has long been assumed that the well-off must assist with uplifting the poor, who would otherwise be incapable of doing so on their own. Perhaps this is because Indian society was inherently biased against individuals working their way up. According to the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, one of the prime duties of kings is government-sanctioned charity. More communitarian views of society (reflected by governance) are common in Asian cultures relative to Western societies. India has traditionally functioned as an interconnected society of villagers and peasants. Rice agriculture is an intensely cooperative activity. According to research in Science magazine, rice-growing societies are less likely be individualistic. As Thomas Talhelm, who led the study, explained: Families have to flood and drain their field at the same timeSo there are punishments for being too individualistic. He also noted that rice paddies require irrigation systems: That cost falls on the village, not just one familyso villages have to figure out a way to coordinate and pay for and maintain this system. It makes people cooperate. As such, an individuals or a familys self-interest has limited relevance in understanding Hindu-American political leanings.

Just as in the United Kingdom, the Conservatives recently beat Labour among Hindu and Sikh voters, Hindu-Americans current leanings toward the Democratic Party could change in the coming decades. The Republican party is becoming more economically populist and may become more influenced by Catholic notions of distributism. These trends could make the Republican Party more like the British Tories. In this scenario, more minorities might embrace the Republican Party.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative. He also writes for The National Interest and The Diplomat. He is part of the Hindu-American community.

More:
Hindu-Americans Don't Vote Republican - The American Conservative

July 8, 2017 by Jeffrey Gantz

One hundred and fifty-seven years after Gustav Mahlers birth on July 7, 1860, he could hardly have imagined a better birthday present than the performance of his Second Symphony, the Resurrection, that Andris Nelsons and the Boston Symphony Orchestra gave to open Tanglewoods 2017 season.

Mahler premiered the Resurrection in Berlin in 1895, to a mixed reception. The certainty of its redemptive Finale would give way to the pantheism of his Third Symphony, the mortal humor of the Fourth and Fifth, the mortal tragedy of the Sixth, the mundane humor of the Seventh, and the death struggle that is Das Lied von der Erde and the Ninth and Tenth. But Mahler never outgrew the hope of the Resurrection. It was the piece he conducted at his Vienna farewell concert, after he had resigned as director of the Vienna Hofoper. It was the first of his symphonies that he conducted in New York (1908), and the first that he conducted in Paris (1910).

The Resurrection symphony also prompted the late New York businessman and financier Gilbert Kaplan to acquire the autograph manuscript of Mahlers score and take up the baton. Kaplan conducted Mahlers Second on more than 100 occasions, and he recorded it twice, with the London Symphony in 1987 and the Vienna Philharmonic in 2004. Kaplans philosophy of the Resurrection was that the angels are in the details, but theres more to the heaven of this symphony than his literal readings dream of. On a rainy Friday, Nelsons took it by the devils horns, so to speak.

You dont need Mahlers program to understand that the opening Allegro maestoso is a funeral march, or that its the hero of his First Symphony whos in the coffin. But that opening outburst in the cellos and basses can be calm and resigned or big and angry. Nelsons went for big and angry. Recorded timings for this movement range from 17-1/2 minutes (Otto Klemperer in 1951) to 25-1/2 minutes (Otto Klemperer in 1971); Nelsons took 25. He gave the initial theme drama, space, and articulation, making palpable those bars where the cellos and basses, now downward slipping, recall the passage in the first act of Wagners Die Walkre when Hunding orders Sieglinde to prepare food and drink for Siegmund. The wistful, yearning E-major second theme was fraught, almost self-consciously so, but on its second appearance, in the development, Nelsons conjured what T. S. Eliot called the agony in stony places. He was ferocious where Mahler introduces the plainsong Dies Irae (Day of Wrath) to the march, then tender when the yearning theme rises to a hopeful F-sharp, a moment many conductors gloss over. The coda was measured but never sagged.

Mahler marked a five-minute pause to follow the Allegro maestoso. Perhaps he thought his audience would need that much of a break to recover from the gravity of the first movement; perhaps he thought that the Andante moderato would be jarring if it followed immediately. Contemporary audiences hardly need five minutes; conductors these days usually take a brief pause. Nelsons took three minutes, which seemed just right.

The Andante moderato flashes back to happy time in the heros life; Mahlers program describes it as a memory, a ray of sunlight, pure and cloudless. The movement has been described as both a minuet and a Lndler; Nelsons gave it the courtly delicacy of the one and the rustic sway of the other. One could have asked for more animation in the stately first trio, but the transition from the second trio back into the main subject was seductive, and the drawn-out conclusion was a benediction.

In the third movement, I lost Nelsonss thread. Titled In ruhig flieender Bewegung (In Peacefully Flowing Movement), its Mahlers remodeling of his Des Knaben Wunderhorn song Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt, wherein St. Anthony, finding his church empty, goes to preach to the fishes, who listen attentively before resuming their venal ways. Mahler describes the movement as a return to this tangled life of ours after awaking from the blissful dream of the Andante moderato. Peacefully flowing describes what Nelsons gave us, but at his moderate tempo the movement was mild-mannered, with no hint of mincing sarcasm, and the climaxes didnt have room to register. Even the moment when the ocean seems to open up and reveal Wagners Rhinemaidens wanted magic.

Mahler was, he tells us, at a loss as to how to redeem this distorted and crazy world until, in 1894, he attended the funeral of conductor Hans von Blow and heard a choir sing a setting of Friedrich Klopstocks poem Auferstehen (Rise Again). In short order, he fashioned the final two movements. The fourth, Urlicht (Primal Light), adapts another of the composers Knaben Wunderhorn songs. Nelsonss mezzo, Bernarda Fink, sang without a score and with admirable purity and gravity she never sounded operatic. She also conveyed meaning without overenunciating. What she didnt do was project.

Mahler concludes the Resurrection with his own version of the Klopstock chorale, but not until the Day of Wrath arrives and the dead rise, march, and stand for Judgment though as Mahler advises us, There is no Judgment, only A feeling of overwhelming love. This fifth and final movement sprawls and is hard to hold together. It begins in chaos before we hear the Resurrection theme, which, it turns out, is a rhythmic variation on the Ewig motif from Wagners Siegfried: Ewig war ich, ewig bin ich (Eternal I was, eternal I am) is what Brnnhilde sings to Siegfried after hes braved her ring of fire. You can hear a foreshadowing of the Resurrection theme as early as bar 48 of the Allegro maestoso which makes you wonder whether Mahler didnt know where he was going with this symphony from the outset.

Andris Nelsons conducts BSO, TFC, Bernardam Fink, and Malin Christensson (Hilary Scott photo)

I wasnt always sure where Nelsons was going either. This movement was mighty Mahler at the decibel level but some sections were hustled and others went so slackly that the phrasing flatlined. The soprano, Malin Christensson, had sung previously with Nelsons and the BSO in Februarys Bach B-minor Mass; she was pleasing then and pleasing Friday, but she rarely rose above the tumult.

What Mahler called Der groe Appell (The Great Call), however, was perfectly calibrated antiphonal offstage brass fanfares set against an onstage flutes nightingale, which Mahler called the bird of death. And it was gratifying to see the Tanglewood Festival Chorus, all in white, off book. The choruss first word, Auferstehen, was hushed (which is the norm in a good performance) but also gentle (a pleasant surprise). Bereite dich, so often barked, was a full-throated cheer. Nelsons integrated the tempos of Sterben werd ich, um zu leben and the slightly faster Was du geschlagen in a way that few conductors do, and the climax was fervent.

The reading overall was expansive at 87 minutes (excluding that three-minute pause). As a live performance (real or imagined shortcomings aside), it measured up to Claudio Abbados legendary 1979 BSO guesting and, yes, Benjamin Zanders offering this past April with the Boston Philharmonic. Next to more compact, natural recordings by the likes of Otto Klemperer and William Steinberg, Nelsonss interpretation could sound studied, but for every perplexing moment, came two or three breathtaking ones. The clarity of the orchestra was remarkable throughout; the counterpoint between the upper and lower strings felt palpable, and the winds and the brass executed with ravishing beauty. A CD of this night would be among the best in the catalog. Happy birthday Gustav!

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Read the original here:
Nelsons Leads Tanglewood Resurrection - The Boston Musical Intelligencer

There are at least twenty distinct options on God, found throughout history and afoot right now.

We can say there is considerable variety in the approach to God as long as we admit that variety is just a pretty word for disagreement.

What does disagreement show?

Theological disagreement shows us that humanity has never ever agreed about Who or What or Whether God is. Your own view of God (find it in the list below) will always be a minority opinion, outnumbered by all the other opinions combined.

Here are the twenty:

Polytheists say there are many Gods, as many as you like, into the millions if you prefer, perhaps billions, one for every pair of human eyes. You may worship and adore all the Gods.

Henotheists admit many Gods too, but you may only have time to devote yourself to one, and thats okay because these are not self-doubting, jealous Gods.

Kat-henotheists also acknowledge many Gods, but you should dedicate yourself to a single God at a time, moving from one God to another God at different phases of your life, perhaps the phases offered in As You Like It by Shakespeares intellectualist idler, Jaques, who espies seven stages of life, beginning with infancy and ending in the second childishness of old-aged senilitysans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything. There are Gods aplenty for each stage.

Trinitarians affirm one God but this God is to be worshiped and adored in three persons: Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Ghost. To other monotheists like Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Bahais and Caodais, and to polytheists and atheists too, Trinitarian math is elusive (1+1+1=1?) and susceptible to being labelled a petite polytheism of three distinct Gods. Trinitarians vigorously defend the oneness of three.

Dualists acknowledge two Gods, one very very Good and the other one very very Evil. The need for two rests upon the worlds oscillation between beauty and ugliness, delight and dread, kindness and cruelty, irises and ebola viruses. In a family of Dualists you may hear the following dialogue: Child: Mommy, did our good, loving and compassionate God create the talon, the fang and the claw? Mom: No, sweetie, the other God, the God of cruelty, made those. As if you needed to be told, you should adore the very very Good God.

Monotheists declare there has only ever been one good God to worship and adore. Several distinct and opposing monotheistic religions claim this God and define him in many different ways, with many different hues.

Dystheists say theres one God who is not really all that good, given conspicuous evidence from our bloody red in tooth and claw, predator-prey natural world. Adore with caution.

Pantheists state that God is identical to the many things of the physical, material world, and when you adore the many things of the material world you adore God.

Pan-en-theists claim that God is within the many things of the material world but distinct from the many things of the material world. You may adore this God in your esteem for the material world, or adore this God as something above the material world.

Deists insist there is one God who created the universe but thereafter took no interest in it. You do not adore this God because this God cares nothing about you, either because he doesnt know you exist, or because he cares about you as much as he cares about the life of an oyster or a gnat (with due apologies to The World Parliament of Insects, Mollusks, & Affiliated Clam Culture).

Daoists maintain that God is not a person at all but an Impersonal Force that pervades the universe and may be tapped-into by humans but requires no adoration. (Cf. Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Rey of the Star Wars mythos.)

Extra-Terrrestrialists say that what humans have been calling Gods are actually space-visiting galactic beings who used modest ingredients and measuring spoons to un-miraculously originate life on Earth and thereafter vacationed in rural New Mexico.

Monists proclaim there is only one item in existence: God. God is everything, everything is God, and everything is only one thing, God. Variety is a delusion, and all the words we have for the many existent things are superfluous. Thin the dictionary to the letter g and the word God. (Pantheism is different in that it admits the existence of many things).

Anatheists say God cannot be rendered into any image or concept, because the God that can be imagined is not the real God. Our mystics proffer this deity and claim to adore God immediately; that is, without the mediation of holy saints, holy buildings, holy worship services, bells, books, candles, or even thoughts and words. Mystics often claim an ineffable experience and then write inch-thick books describing it.

Euhemerists say all Gods were once humans who at some point achieved apotheosis, elevation to divinity. Adore the worthy ones. (Some Buddhists may be here.)

Misotheists follow Prometheus and hate all Gods because Gods are completely overbearing, pompous, fat-witted despots. Adoration is inapt.

Skeptics doubt not only avowals about God but also all claims to all knowledge. A Skeptic might say, You you claim to know God exists and you dont even know if Charlemagne existed.

Atheists find no persuasive arguments for God, no convincing idea of God on offer in six thousand years, and therefore say there must be no Gods. (Some Buddhists may be here).

Agnostics remain unconvinced by every argument for Gods existence but prefer to withhold judgment as to whether God exists by saying I dont know if theres a God. Agnostics are no kind of believer in God and do not hedge their bet by attending religious services or by prayingjust in case theres a God.

Ignostics advise us to give up the word God and rub it from the worlds lexicons and never utter it again. Why? Because it has been proved over many thousands of years that humans are utterly ignorant about what the word God signifies, as established by our extensive disagreements concerning God, evinced in this very roster of twenty.

Featured image Confusion by lisa-skorpion via Flickr

.

Originally posted here:
20 Options on God (Find Yours Here) - Patheos (blog)