Speaking the Truth (Dabru Emet)

by Prof. Peter Ochs ( Jewish Analysis )

The world, says Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, rests on three things: Hadin, HaEmet, V'Hashalom: on justice, truth, and peace (Pirke Avot, 1:18). May God bless "A Common Word" and receive it as a powerful contribution to the peace, truth, and justice that uphold the world. This Word is worthy of the tradition of Aaron, and it enhances and extends the tradition of the sage Hillel, who taught that the "disciples of Aaron love peace and the pursuit of peace, love their fellow creatures and seek to draw them to the study of God's word" (Pirke Avot, 1:12).

"A Common Word" therefore comes as a gift, as well, to those who practice Judaism, for it does honor and service to the One God whom they acknowledge as sole Creator of the Universe and Redeemer of humankind. It draws into fellowship the two other children of Abraham's faith, thereby extending Abraham's blessings to all the nations. In this way, "A Common Word" contributes to and extends the obligatory service of all Jews to repair the world and bring glory to God's Name.

Before adding any other word about Judaism, let me say that "A Common Word" merits praise and blessings l'shmah — for its own sake — as a blessed moment in the history of God's work on this world. Its authors and signatories merit praise, with prayers for their well being and for the strength of this good work.

It is of utmost urgency that Christians and Muslims turn now to receive and contemplate this Word, devote both scholarly words and sermons to its import, and devote resources and energies to its dissemination and to its study.

It is most important now to allow these two communities of faith to think of and engage with each other, as "study partners" (what our tradition calls chevrutot) whose intense work and fellowship should not, for awhile, be interrupted by any other. God bless these partnerships and let them flourish as places where God's Name is glorified.

Only later may it be time to consider the impact of this moment on other faith partners. For the sake of that time, here are a few reasons why I believe "A Common Word" will prove to be of profound significance, as well, for Jews and Judaism:

• Each doctrinal item in this "Word" corresponds to a classical doctrine of rabbinic Judaism. It therefore belongs to a divine discourse that, if Christianity affirms it, then all three Abrahamic Faiths affirm it;

• Its emphases on Love of God and God's Love, and Love of Neighbor are emphases of rabbinic Judaism and the most appropriate means of engaging each faith with the other. As cited in the "Word", one pillar of Jewish faith is the declaration of the Sh'ma: "YHVH is our God YHVH Alone. And you shall love YHVH your God with all your heart, your soul, your might." Creation, Revelation, and Redemption, the three defining acts of God in the world, are all acts of divine love. And, as often cited in the words of Rabbi Hillel, to cite the Torah while standing on one foot is to cite the passage "That which is hateful to you, do not unto your fellow" (B. Talmud Shabbat 31a); and in the words of Rabbi Akiva (B. Talmud Sanhedrin 38a etc.) "A fundamental principle of the Torah is 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Lev. 19:18).

• It beckons Muslims and Christians into the kind of embrace that Jewish scholars sought for Jews and Christians in the 2000 statement "Dabru Emet," or "Speak the Truth". This "Word" therefore extends, affirms, and deepens the work of God that we have already seen in Jewish-Christian dialogue. It thereby extends and deepens the witness of Judaism itself.

"Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement On Christians and Christianity" appeared in September 2000 as a full-page advert in the New York Times (Full text here). Authored by four Jewish scholars (of which I was one) and signed by approximately two hundred rabbis and Jewish leaders from each denomination, this statement sought to acknowledge the place of Christianity in God's work and to acknowledge the work of many Christian leaders since World War II to remove vestiges of anti-Judaism from Christian liturgies and literatures. "Dabru Emet" was offered as an opening to theological and not merely social engagement between the two faiths.

Over seven years, it has elicited formal proclamations of support from a wide range of Christian ecclesial bodies, has been translated into at least eight languages, and has served as the text for what appear to have been hundreds of study sessions by Christian, Jewish, and Jewish-and-Christian groups, conferences, and classes.

"Dabru Emet" addressed nine areas of overlapping theological work between the two faith traditions: (a) Worship of the One God; (b) Study of the Revealed Word of God; (c) The Status of Holy Land in God's work; (d) Shared Commitment to Biblical Morality; (e) Repairing Anti-Semitism; (f) Accepting our Religious Differences and Recognizing that God alone can and will resolve them in the end of days; (g) That Shared Study and Work Will not Reduce our Distinct Religious Commitments; (h) That We Work for Justice and Peace on Earth.

We offered these words of "Dabru Emet" not as final doctrinal statements but strictly as openings and provocations to deeper levels of shared theological study between us. While acknowledging that we and other Jewish scholars might already frame the words of Dabru Emet somewhat differently, I am pleased to note deep resonances between "Dabru Emet" and "A Common Word". I believe "A Common Word" represents a comparable opening to theological dialogue. Here is a sampling of ways:

• Love of God: For the authors of "Dabru Emet", the first principle of Torah is that God is One. As noted in "A Common Word", The Shema in the Book of Deuteronomy (6:4-5) is a centrepiece of the Old Testament and of Jewish liturgy, Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.

• Love of Neighbor: For the authors of "Dabru Emet", the purpose of Torah is to instruct us in God's ways and to call us to follow those ways. Primary among these ways is love of neighbour (as in Lev. 19:18).

• The Call to a Common Word: For the authors of "Dabru Emet", God's ways are disclosed to us through the study of God's word. The primary practice of study is chevruta, studying texts and commentaries of Torah in the company of fellow-students, so that dialogue and love of fellow are primary means of instruction in God's ways. "Dabru Emet" extends this study, as well, to circles of Jewish and Christian study. Many signatories to Dabru Emet also support or contribute to The Society for Scriptural Reasoning, which extends such study to circles of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

• Supplemental Wisdoms: A Common Word notes additional wisdoms that underlie Muslim dedication to these loves of God and neighbour. These wisdoms resonate deeply, as well, in traditional Judaism and are cherished by the authors of "Dabru Emet":

• The Heart: for Jewish scholars, lev ("heart") is indeed the seat of mind-and-sentiment-and-will, the "spiritual heart" to which love of God is commanded and in which knowledge of God is nurtured. Thus, "love YHVH your God with all your heart" (Deut. 6).

• Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom: In the words of the rabbis' traditional morning liturgy, reshit chokhmah yirat YHVH, "fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (and all who fulfil His commandments gain good understanding)".

• A Goodly Example: For traditional Jewish scholars, to cling to God (to "set God before me always," shiviti YHVH l' negdi tamid) is to imitate the ways of the saints before us, the prophets, patriarchs, sages, the tsadikkim v'chasidim, "the righteous and holy ones."

• In the Best Stature: For these scholars, humanity is created in the image and likeness of God. All humans are therefore made of one form: the image of God. As different as we may live and as burdened as we may be by suffering and sin, our true devotion and obligation remains one and single: to fulfill our lives in God's image.

Let us be humbled by our tasks of serving God and the good of humanity and, in that humility, find one another indeed.

May God bless this moment and this pair of partners turning together toward His Service.

____________________

PETER W. OCHS, Ph.D, is Edgar Bronfman Professor of Modern Jewish Studies at the University of Virginia and Co-founder of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning

Source: http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Common-Word/Jewish-Response.html

Diplomats welcome Abdullah’s ‘timely’ initiative for dialogue

Saeed Al-Khotani - Arab News

RIYADH: Foreign diplomats based in the Kingdom have welcomed the World Conference on Dialogue, which was inaugurated by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah in Madrid yesterday, saying the event would lead to greater understanding among followers of different religions.

Eugenio d’Auria, the Italian ambassador to the Kingdom, said Italy is a country with a longstanding tradition favoring contact and dialogue between nations, not confrontation. He added that his country appreciates the initiative.

“We are rightly in favor of any progress toward sharing experience and making joint initiatives in order to improve human conditions in the world,” said d’Auria, adding that he feels the conference would lead to better understanding.

Hiroshi Oka, deputy chief of mission of Japan, said Japan welcomes King Abdullah’s initiative, adding that his country has made a unique contribution to the initiative.

“This is because, this initiative was announced at a reception held by the king last March for the participants of the 6th session of the Japanese Islamic Forum, which was held in Riyadh under the auspices of Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal,” he said.

He added that people should understand that dialogue is high on the list of King Abdullah’s priorities and that the king launched the National Dialogue Program when he was crown prince.

Oka said Japan thinks that the king’s call for interfaith dialogue is an extension of his interest in dialogue, adding that he hopes the outcome of the conference would help overcome the miscommunication and misunderstanding that is common among the followers of different faiths. Antonio Villamor, ambassador of the Philippines, said, “We are happy that King Abdullah is at the forefront of this dialogue. The Philippine government welcomes it... We feel that with different problems across the world, leaders talking about interfaith dialogue will enhance the chances of world peace.”

He pointed out that the Philippines is very optimistic about the results. “I would say that our optimism is shared by many in the world, especially with King Abdullah presiding over the conference. Followers of other faiths are keenly watching the possible results of this dialogue and all are praying for its success,” he said.

Jan Thesleff, ambassador of Sweden, said his country considers the initiative to be very important, as an Islamic nation is leading it.

He added that Sweden, like Saudi Arabia, has for a long time worked to develop dialogue. “This dialogue that King Abdullah has proposed and launched in Madrid, we think, is a very, very timely one,” he said.

Thesleff said it was too early to predict the conference’s outcome, although expectations are very high. “I think King Abdullah’s initiative is a very good sign for globalization... we all, as ethnic and religious groups, live together, so the issues of dialogue, cooperation and coexistence are very important,” he said.

Source: Arab News

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=111904&d=17&m=7&y=2008

Opening address at the World Conference on Dialogue

Common Ground News Service - Middle East

Opening address at the World Conference on Dialogue

by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz

24 July 2008

Madrid - In the name of God, most merciful, most compassionate.

Praise be to God Almighty, who revealed in his Holy Book: "O mankind! We have created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of [God] is (he who is) the most righteous of you."

And peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and on all the prophets and messengers.

Your Majesty, my friend, Juan Carlos, King of Spain:

Distinguished friends: I greet you, and I thank you for responding to our invitation to this dialogue. I appreciate the efforts you are making in the service of humanity. I extend my deep appreciation to my friend, His Majesty King Juan Carlos, and the Kingdom of Spain and its friendly people for welcoming the convening of this conference on their land, a land that has a historic and civilised heritage among the followers of religions, and which has witnessed co-existence between people of differing ethnicities and religions and cultures, and contributed, with other civilisations, to the advancement of humanity.

Dear friends: I came to you from the place dearest to the hearts of all Muslims, the land of the Two Holy Mosques, bearing with me a message from the Islamic world, representing its scholars and thinkers who recently met in the confines of the House of God. This message declares that Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance; a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of religions; a message that promises to open a new page for humanity in which – God willing – concord will replace conflict.

Dear friends: We all believe in one God, who sent messengers for the good of humanity in this world and the hereafter. His will, praise be to Him, was that people should differ in their faiths. If the Almighty had so desired, all mankind would have shared the same religion. We are meeting today to affirm that the religions that God Almighty desired for the happiness of man should be a means to ensure that happiness.

It is therefore incumbent upon us to declare to the world that difference must not lead to conflict and confrontation, and to state that the tragedies that have occurred in human history were not attributable to religion, but were the result of extremism with which some adherents of every divinely revealed religion, and of every political ideology, have been afflicted.

Mankind is suffering today from a loss of values and conceptual confusion, and is passing through a critical phase which, in spite of all the scientific progress, is witnessing a proliferation of crime, an increase in terrorism, the disintegration of the family, subversion of the minds of the young by drug abuse, exploitation of the poor by the strong, and odious racist tendencies. This is all a consequence of the spiritual void from which people suffer when they forget God, and God causes them to forget themselves. There is no solution for us other than to agree on a united approach, through dialogue among religions and civilisations.

Dear friends: Most of the past dialogues have failed because they have deteriorated into mutual recrimination focusing on and exaggerating differences in a sterile endeavour that exacerbated rather than mitigated tensions, or because they attempted to fuse religions and creeds on the pretext of bringing them closer together.

This is likewise a fruitless effort, since the adherents of every religion are deeply convinced in their faith, and will not accept any alternative thereto. If we wish this historic meeting to succeed, we must focus on the common denominators that unite us, namely, deep faith in God, noble principles, and lofty moral values, which constitute the essence of religion.

Dear friends: Man could be the cause of the destruction of this planet and everything in it. He is also capable of turning it into an oasis of peace and tranquillity in which adherents of religions, creeds and philosophies could co-exist, and in which people could cooperate with each other in a respectful manner, and address problems through dialogue rather than violence.

Man is also capable – by the grace of God – of vanquishing hatred through love, and bigotry through tolerance, thereby enabling all mankind to enjoy the dignity that the Almighty has bestowed upon all of them.

Dear friends: Let our dialogue be a triumph of belief over disbelief, of virtue over vice, of justice over iniquity, of peace over conflicts and wars, and of human brotherhood over racism.

Thus, with God we began, and through Him we seek assistance. I offer you my sincere greetings and appreciation.

Thank you and peace be upon you.

###

* King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is the current King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The World Conference on Dialogue took place in Madrid from 16-18 July 2008. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Saudi-US Relations Information Service, 19 July 2008, www.saudi-us-relations.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.


For more indepth reports visit:

Madrid Interfaith Dialogue Conference - SUSRIS Special Report - Jul 19, 2008

Hope for coexistence enthuses delegates by Michel Cousins

17 July 2008

MADRID – “I never expected anything like it” was the comment of one Pakistani Muslim attending the World Conference on Dialogue organised by the Muslim World League and hosted by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

He could have been speaking for most of the participants at what is proving to be quite an extraordinary experience.

Almost all agree that the diversity of clerics and other delegates is nothing short of remarkable. In addition to those from every corner of the Muslim world and of every variety – Sunni muftis, Shiite imams, jurists, academics and more – there are innumerable bishops, priests, theologians and lay people from all Christian denominations and all parts of the world, plus a veritable phalanx of rabbis – European, American and Israeli – not to mention Hindu priests and Buddhist monks. Doubtless there are others as yet undiscovered.

The variety and colour of clerical garb of many seen swirling in the conference hotel lobby and at the opening event at the El Prado Palace was in itself a remarkable statement about the event. This was dialogue in Technicolor. Sunni muftis in white thobes, turbaned Shiite imams in brown cloaks, a cardinal in red and black, bishops in purple, bishops in black, bishops with remarkable headgear and jewelled crosses, rabbis with skullcaps and hats, Hindu priests in orange and vermilion, Buddhist monks in grey – it is a riot of colour – and all not only mixing together with smiles on their faces and chatting together excitedly, but greeting and hugging each other like long-lost friends. The sight of one Hindu priest in orange cloths wandering along a path outside the royal palace just behind a Saudi imam in white thobe just after the opening event provided all the symbolism that was needed.

But, in fact, most people were in everyday wear, suits in general, and it was not easy to know who was what. At one point, I found myself sitting at a table with an Iraqi who turned out to be a Yazidi, a Japanese man who is a Shinto priest, and an Indian Muslim who turned out to be a former correspondent for Arab News!

The symbolism of such a diverse presence at the conference was not lost on the delegates, several of whom are already involved in local interfaith dialogues in various parts of the world. It more than made up for the practical problems which were only to be expected in a conference that was organised at such short notice. It is a direct follow-on to the International Conference on Dialogue which took place in Makkah last month. Only those, it seems, who attended that remarkable event were in any way prepared for the no less extraordinary one in Madrid.

The fact that the conference has taken place at all is one that many commented on yesterday. “Who would have imagined such an event as this after 9/11?” said one British participant. An Arab bishop expressed much the same astonishment, but it was astonishment laced with strong admiration: “I never imagined seeing so many faiths here.”

Anglican and Roman Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis were equally surprised. For them, the importance of the conference was not what it may achieve in final statements, significant though they may be, but in itself – as proof that people of different faiths can come together without rancour and suspicion and instead with warmth and hope – and work for the common good.

That view was echoed by a senior Melkite Catholic cleric from Jordan; he was fulsome in his praise for King Abdullah and his initiative. “We always need wisdom in political leaders if there is to be peace,” he said. Dialogue and the conference were “of the greatest importance.” But there was realism in his attitude: “This was done by the Saudi leadership; now it is up to us, the participants, to take it to the people.”

For much-admired British rabbi David Rosen, it would, however, be foolish to imagine that religion alone can answer all the questions. “If politicians do not do what is needed, it (dialogue) will fail. Religion cannot succeed by itself.” But he added that politics will fail if it does not take religion into account. Religion needs to be brought into dealing with conflicts as “a source of reconciliation and peace.” Pointing specifically to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he believed that peace initiative after initiative had failed “because there was no religious input.”

But even he is an evident enthusiast about the conference. Enthusiasm is the prevailing mood – that and a sense that King Abdullah has performed a remarkable feat in causing such an event to happen. There is, however, one other sentiment among all here. It is the view that this has to be the first of many such conferences; that if there is no follow-up to Madrid, dialogue will falter.

However, having been given a lead, those here are unlikely to let that happen.

###

* Michel Cousins is a principal lead writer for Arab News. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Arab News, 17 July 2008, www.arabnews.com.
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
http://www.commongroundnews.org

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Author: Francis S. Collins
[Free Press, 294pp., 2006]

Review by ZEBA SYED

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

In The Language of God, Dr. Francis Collins drafts a truce between the battling armies of science and religion. As director of the Human Genome Project, Collins has worked for decades at the forefront of scientific discovery, paving the way for the emergence of revolutionary breakthroughs in human genetics. However, one quality renders Collins unlikely to be among today's leading scientists in the eyes of many of his academic peers - his unshakeable faith.

Over the course of his career, Collins has withstood innumerable objections against the compatibility of his scientific and religious sentiments, and these attacks have questioned his ability to remain loyal to each camp while simultaneously embracing the other. In The Language of God, not only does Collins rationalize why science and faith are harmonious with each other, but he also demonstrates that each ideology is incomplete in the absence of the other. He argues that only together do science and spirituality enrich the human experience.

Collins begins his book with a description of his own journey from atheism to faith. Growing up in a family indifferent towards religion, Collins never considered the impact of his early love for science on religion. He pursued his passion for science at the University of Virginia and Yale University. It was in these academic settings that his science-minded peers (already under the impression that science and faith are incompatible) influenced Collins to become agnostic, and eventually an atheist. Later recognizing that his position had emerged from external influences and not his own agency, Collins sought to develop an incontestable rationale for why the notion of God's existence is absurd. To his surprise, he came to realize that the logic for belief in a God is in fact more concrete than that against it.

Collins then presents the major challenges against the case for God's existence, such as the presence of suffering in the world. He proceeds to discuss the fields of science that have served as battlegrounds for conflict with religion. These include the origin of the universe, emergence of life on earth and evolution. How should faith adherents approach these issues in light of religious scripture? Should religious texts be interpreted literally, in effect placing religion in direct opposition to scientific data? Or rather, should practitioners read religious texts loosely, thus allowing a peaceful coexistence of holy scriptures and scientific evidence? How have scientists and theologians in the past approached this question of interpretation? Collins draws upon the works of such prominent historical figures as Galileo, Saint Augustine, and, of course, Charles Darwin, to see what advice they have to offer.

Collins then depicts the most commonly adopted positions in the conflict between science and religion. The first is atheism - which rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God - or agnosticism - which questions the existence of God, heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation. A second stance is creationism, in which faith is based upon an entirely literal interpretation of sacred texts, and thus overrules scientific evidence. A third faction adopts the notion of Intelligent Design, the idea that divine intervention guides the course of natural processes such as evolution. Intelligent Design is a view held by many religious individuals, and represents a final desperate attempt to rescue religion in the face of increasing scientific evidence that seems to undermine religious beliefs at an alarming rate. Collins himself rejects these positions and instead adopts BioLogos, also known as theistic evolution, in which science and faith exist in harmony. According to this ideology, there is no supernatural intervention in evolution, but rather, in the moment of creation of the universe, God had already mapped out and determined every detail of the future. To accept theistic evolution, one must accept that God is outside of nature, space and time as perceived by humans.

Collins ends with a plea to scientists and believers to end the unnecessary hostility that has arisen between the two factions. He deems these flames easily extinguishable, if only proponents of each camp would simply open their eyes: "The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshiped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful - and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them." (211) In the appendix, Collins concludes with a description of the central tensions that have arisen in bioethics, due to advancements in fertility technology and DNA analysis. This chapter is a valuable overview for readers who feel that their knowledge of these ethical issues, such as those associated with stem cell research, requires honing. Collins provides for readers an objective exhibition of these debates and describes why they have been so difficult to resolve.

Filled with academically enriching, spiritually enlightening and emotionally stirring moments, The Language of God keeps readers deeply engrossed. The book can be appreciated from various angles; it can be seen as a lesson in the history of major benchmarks in science, or as a spiritual refresher that resonates with readers from diverse traditions. Even I can attest to this, as despite my Islamic convictions, the words of this devout Christian author have been spiritually moving. The book has reminded me of the indisputable signs of God's existence, signs that we often forget to appreciate in our busy lives. Perhaps I can call the arrival of this book into my hands a fortuitous event, although, with Collins's reminder fresh in mind, it would be more accurate to ascribe this event to fate, to God's long-term plans. God has already written a script for the course of history, and His cast includes planets, mountain ranges, trees, reptiles, and even human beings. However, this script is written in a text incomprehensible to us, a text we will never decrypt in our lifetimes: This is the Language of God.

Source: Islamic Magazine
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Issue-20/The-Language-of-God-A-Scientist-Presents-Evidence-for-Belief.html

Peace and Justice from Ancient Sages

Justice is the king of salvation.
Whoever is just is saved
from all kinds of errors and futilities.
It is better to be just
than to pass your whole life
in the genuflexions and prostrations of exterior worship.
Attar, The Conference of the Birds 31 The wars of mankind are like children's fights -
all meaningless, pitiless and contemptible.
Rumi, Masnavi

.....................................................................................

"Come, come again, whoever you are, come!
Heathen, fire worshipper or idolatrous, come!
Come even if you broke your penitence a hundred times,
Ours is the portal of hope, come as you are."
Rumi

............................................................................................

"Rumi said, 'From love, thorns become flowers,'
"Rumi teaches that even if the Devil falls in love,
he becomes something like (the angel) Gabriel,
and that evilness dies within him."

Rediscovering Arabic Science

“Did you know that the Egyptian doctor Ibn al-Nafis recognized that the lungs purify blood in the 13th century, nearly 350 years before the Europeans?” he asks, standing in front of an anatomical drawing of the human body. “Or that the Arabs treated the mentally ill with music therapy as early as the ninth century?”

Source: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200703/rediscovering.arabic.science.htm

From What Is to What Ought to Be an interview with Michael Lerner by Andrew Cohen

Introduction

"I simply cannot understand how somebody can be a spiritual being and not be actively involved in transforming the world," says Rabbi Michael Lerner. Political revolutionary, humanitarian, spiritual mentor, psychologist, and editor of Tikkun magazine, Michael Lerner is a powerful voice for radical change in this new millennium. His indefatigable commitment to transform this world from one dominated by ego-centered, mean-spirited, materialistic values to one rooted in the spiritual revelation that we are all one indivisible whole is inspiring, to say the least. He is a passionate man whose deeply compassionate call to awaken to the truth of our undivided spiritual nature is inseparable from his plea for us all to awaken to our own conscience. Rabbi Lerner is an idealist who is actively engaged, not only philosophically but practically, in how we can actually transform this world that seems to be heading toward disaster. With his uncompromising demand for a comprehensive transformation of society and culture informed by deep spiritual values, his contribution to our investigation of the question, "Can enlightenment save the world?" seemed to be invaluable.

Lerner was deeply inspired in his youth by Abraham Heschel, one of modernity's greatest Jewish theologians. A radical while he studied philosophy at U.C. Berkeley in the sixties, Lerner ultimately decided that the liberal and progressive movements were defeating themselves because they were not addressing the ethical and spiritual dimensions of the human experience. He went on to get his second Ph.D. in clinical psychology and founded the Institute for Labor and Mental Health where, as a psychotherapist, he realized that many working-class people were "moving to the right because the liberals didn't seem to understand or address the alienation and meaninglessness fostered by the me-firstism of the market economy." A tireless political activist, he also became a leading figure in the Jewish Renewal movement. Eventually deciding that liberals needed a "politics of meaning," and that Judaism had the foundations for such a politics, he founded Tikkun magazine in 1986. In 1993 Lerner achieved national fame when the Washington Post dubbed him "guru of the White House" during his short-lived association with the Clintons, who had been inspired by his influential book The Politics of Meaning. In 1996 he was ordained by Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi and founded Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in San Francisco.

Being a spiritual teacher myself, I found Rabbi Lerner's uncompromising views refreshing to hear. In our Western spiritual marketplace—where more often than not the endless fears and desires of the ego are assuaged rather than honestly challenged, where the always profound implications of spiritual experience are endlessly watered down—his intolerance for materialism and for those approaches to spiritual transformation that are ultimately only self-serving is an important wake-up call. While I agreed with Lerner's emphatic declaration that spiritual evolution should result in active transformation of the world, the automatic association of the spiritual and the fiercely political was not always as obvious to me as it was to him.

An unstoppable hurricane of compassionate concern, Rabbi Lerner compels each and every one of us to question the actual depth of our commitment to our own highest convictions. This lively interview was conducted in his living room in the Berkeley Hills last December.

______________________________________________________

Interview

ANDREW COHEN: In an interview in this issue of What Is Enlightenment?, social scientist and evolutionary activist Duane Elgin states, "What we're really facing is the convergence of a number of powerful trends—climate change, species extinction, the spread of poverty, and the growth of population. All these factors could develop individually, but what's unique about our time is that the world has become a closed system. There's no place to escape, and all of these powerful forces are beginning to impinge upon one another and reinforce one another. Our situation is something like a set of rubber bands that you stretch out and out and out until they reach the limit of their elasticity, which is the breaking point of the system. . . . Something powerful is going to begin happening at that point, and while right now we can turn away from this, in another twenty years a systems crisis will be an unyielding reality that we will have to deal with." Elgin, you, and many other activists who speak out passionately about the crisis that we are in repeatedly state in no uncertain terms that it is not technological innovation but only a spiritual transformation—a quantum leap in perspective based upon spiritual insight alone—that will have the power to change the hearts and minds of human beings significantly enough to be able to bring to a halt this suicidal game of Russian roulette that we are playing with the fate of the planet and all life upon it. Indeed, the theme of your recent book Spirit Matters is that it is our individual and collective alienation from ourselves, from our own spiritual depth, that is the fundamental cause of the narcissism, shortsightedness, and rampant materialism that is bringing us to the brink of self-destruction. Could you please explain why you feel that it is our lack of spiritual realization, individually and collectively, that is the root cause of all that is wrong, not only with our relationship to ourselves as human beings but also with our relationship to all of life?

MICHAEL LERNER: I'd start by saying this: The fundamental reality of the universe is that we are all interconnected as part of the unity of all Being. And the alienation that we experience is first and foremost an alienation from who we are. It is a product of our failure to understand ourselves as connected to all other human beings and then to all other beings. That failure manifests in a zillion ways in contemporary life, but it's the root of the problem because every specific form of alienation is rooted in our distance from or our lack of awareness of our fundamental interconnection with all other beings.

If we want to look at some specifics around that, we can talk, for example, about the ecological crisis—the way that we imagine that we can dump pollution into the world and that it won't affect us. Or, in a more sophisticated version of this stupidity, we imagine that we won't dump the pollution into our particular part of the planet. We'll dump it into the Third World, not recognizing that we're part of one world system, one planetary system, and one universal system. So this is symbolic of the craziness that comes from not understanding the interconnection—because the poisons come back to us. They come back to us through the food. They come back to us through the air. They come back to us through the interaction with other human beings who have become sick as a result of the impact of the pollution and environmental destruction that we are engaged with. But we are unaware of this, or we're unable to see it.

It's as if we were to say to ourselves, "Well, this is only my toe. It's something far away. I don't really see it as connected to me. I'm up here in my head, or I'm up here in the upper part of my body." Well, if somebody said that to you, you'd say, "No, no. That's my toe. It's really important to me, even though it's not exactly in front of me in my immediate consciousness. But if you start to hurt it, of course, it will hurt me." We are part of this universal body of the universe, and yet we've cut off our awareness of some of our nerve cells so that we don't respond immediately to the stimuli coming from other places. But eventually the poisons come back to us in a very hurtful and destructive way. There's massive irrationality in our not recognizing the interconnection and the interdependence of all human beings and, fundamentally, our interconnection to all Being. So that's on the ecological level, that fundamental alienation from our recognition of the interconnection between all human beings.

On the social level, the same thing is playing out, just in a slightly different way. Were we to understand our fundamental interconnections, we would recognize that our own well-being or the development of our soul and consciousness is totally dependent on the development of every other human being on the planet. That is to say that we're intrinsically linked, that the image of us as individuals pursuing our own self-interest or even our own enlightenment is deeply mistaken. But when one doesn't recognize that, then one thinks, "Oh, I can pursue my own path. I can make it for myself, and it doesn't really matter what's happening to these other human beings around me." And that alienation from other human beings causes so many of the social problems that we're facing, because people imagine that they are on their own when, in fact, they're deeply interconnected with every other human being, not just at the physical level that I was talking about with regard to ecology but at the emotional and spiritual level, the level of our expectations of what's possible between human beings. Our capacity to connect with other human beings—every single interaction that we have—is shaped by our consciousness of the totality of human relationships. And in a world where human relationships are based on a model of each one out for herself or himself, the distance between us is dramatic, and the possibility of loving connection is deeply reduced.

When the understanding of our interconnection is lost, people start to proceed in a way that I'd say is analogous to the misunderstanding that happens with a cancer cell. The cancer cell, the cell that pays attention to its own interest without regard to the other cells around it, starts to consume more and more and more. So it's not surprising that cancer really is the quintessential sickness of the contemporary age. As a society, when you suddenly see this as becoming the major form of illness, it's a dramatic symbol of something happening in the universe. And what is happening is that one tiny little part of the universe—us—has started to get out of control. We do not understand our interrelationship with all other beings and are consuming everything around us in an incredibly destructive way. We do that on the ecological level. We do it on the social level. We do it on the individual level.

AC: What is unique about your thesis is its rare combination of radical and uncompromising politics and the profound common sense of deep humanism, all grounded in a passionate and inspired spirituality. Many people today who are deeply devoted to spiritual awakening often shy away from the kind of committed and passionate engagement with the world that you repeatedly emphasize is absolutely essential in order for the ever more dangerous world we're living in to actually change in the ways that count the most. Why is it that you feel that committed engagement with the world is the most important part of living a truly spiritual life?

ML: Because, as I've been saying, a deep truth of spiritual consciousness is the recognition of our interconnection with all others. There is no way to actually be alive, spiritually alive, and not care. In fact, most spiritual traditions have that element of developing a sense of compassion and caring for the well-being of all others. Now, what I have been stressing is that that consciousness is sometimes isolated from practice, from how we actually live. It's a consciousness in which we can say, "Oh, yes. I feel compassion for all others," but that doesn't lead us to do anything about their situation. And I would argue that that disjunction—compassion for others without wanting to act to alleviate their suffering—is not a product of an enlightened consciousness, but it's a product of somebody who feels defeated about the possibility of healing and transforming the world.

The particular form of spirituality that I come from is the Jewish spiritual tradition. And that tradition has something to add to the spiritual consciousness of the universe. It contributes the insight that the fundamental spiritual force in the universe is a force of healing and transformation. It is a force that makes possible the transformation from that which is to that which ought to be. That is to say, the universe is not morally neutral. The spiritual power of the universe is not a morally neutral force. It is a force that inclines the world toward goodness, toward generosity, toward compassion, and toward an alleviation of unnecessary suffering. The God of the Bible is a God that says that the world can be based on love, that it can be based on caring—love your neighbor and love the stranger—that the world can go in that direction, that that can happen. And not because of some transcendence of all that is, but because the fundamental spiritual reality of the universe is that it is pervaded with love and goodness. And if you are a realized human being or moving in that direction, then your test is to be a witness to that possibility, to be a partner with God in the healing and transformation of the world. This is what it means to say that human beings are created in the image of God: We are meant to be partners, and our task is to actualize more of the goodness and love in the universe and to recognize the world as potentially transformable.

What I say is that spiritual traditions that don't go in this direction, that think that it's sufficient to understand the universe with a detached compassion, are often based on a defeatism that I think is a despair about the possibility of possibility. To believe in God, from my standpoint, is to believe in the possibility of possibility. God is the force that makes possible the transformation from that which is to that which ought to be. So when a spiritual person testifies to the possibility of transformation, that testimony isn't simply about writing a book; it's about acting as though the world really could be based on love and could be based on caring and could be based on this active recognition of the unity of all Being. So that leads us to action, to trying to heal and transform the world.

AC: You said that the Jewish tradition is based upon the fact that in the spiritual revelation, the spiritual energy in the universe is recognized to be a kind of evolutionary movement from, as you said, "that which is to that which ought to be." But is what's recognized in the tradition the absolute truth, or the true picture of reality as it is? I personally agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, but there are many people who would question whether, in the universe itself, there is any inherent movement of spiritual and evolutionary energy toward, as you were saying, the expression of goodness.

ML: There are different ways of experiencing the spiritual reality of the universe. People come down from the mountain with different accounts. And what I can do is to testify to the way that I and my people have experienced it. I don't want to say to anybody else, "Your account isn't a legitimate account," but I want to explain, from my perspective, why it might be that others don't seem to see it in this way. You see, the way of experiencing the universe that I'm talking about is one which is very hard to hold on to. Because once you come down from having had the experience that the world is potentially transformable, you enter into a world in which there are elites of power and money who have kept their power and money in part by convincing everybody that the only way things can be is the way things are and that there is no fundamental transformation possible. You see, unlike other spiritual insights, the insight into the transformative nature of the world is connected with terror—because every social institution, including one's own parents, is committed to convincing you that the world can't be changed very much and that your task is to fit into a particular reality and make it within that reality. And so, given that, I don't blame anyone who is on a spiritual path and hasn't allowed herself or himself to get into this particular aspect of spirituality.

AC: So what you're saying is that the revelation of the inherent goodness of the spiritual energy that moves and ultimately is this universe is revolutionary in nature. It's a revolutionary recognition that always threatens any perspective or fixed position that would inhibit its full or complete flowering.

ML: Exactly. Because its full flowering would lead to a clash with almost every existing religious system, including Judaism, and a clash with all of the rest of the social structures of the society. And I'm not just speaking about economics. For example, so much of what is taught in the universities is theories that tell people to look at the universe in ways that convince them that nothing fundamental can be different, that the world is stuck where it is. All empirical social science and a great deal of the humanities are based on the defeated consciousness, the consciousness that says that nothing fundamentally can be healed or transformed. In fact, in humanities, very often you encounter the following kind of position: "If you're really sophisticated, then you know how much evil there is in the world and how impossible it is to fundamentally change anything. If you believe something different than that, you're just a breathless teenage girl who hasn't yet grown up, who hasn't become a mature adult, who hasn't really fully understood the implications of evil in the universe!"

AC: How hopeless things are.

ML: Exactly. So, this ideology runs very, very deep.

AC: You speak about a deep cynicism in the hearts and minds of many contemporary Americans at this time of crisis. Would you please explain what the causes are of this cynicism, this postmodern curse that is like a shadow over the human heart, preventing its opening to the call of the true Self to transcend ego and selfishness?

ML: This cynicism is manifest in what I call a pathogenic belief. Now, in my book Spirit Matters, I describe this pathogenic belief as the belief that no one else really shares with us our spiritual understanding. And that, consequently, we will necessarily be alone if we go out into our daily lives and say that the world could be based on this spiritual reality of the universe. So no matter how many millions and millions of people are moved to spiritual understanding—and they'll read What Is Enlightenment? or Tikkun magazine—no matter how many millions of people have this spiritual hunger, almost all of us share a fear that we are the only ones who really believe this, who really would want a world based on love and caring, based on awe and wonder. Because of that deep belief, we all act as though we have no alternative but "the real world," that is, the world of making a living and our daily life outside of the few moments when we're meditating or praying or doing religious or spiritual activity. We believe that in the real world, this spirituality has no real application, and that, in fact, were we to bring our spiritual understanding to the rest of the world, we would be ridiculed; we would be put down. All of the credibility that we had managed to build up for ourselves in order to become professionals, in order to be successful in the world of business, in order to have good employment—all of this would be vitiated were we to say that we really believe that the world could be transformed and healed and based on our higher spiritual understanding.

That's the belief. But why is that so deeply ingrained? Well, it's deeply ingrained because at various moments, given that this is shared by most people in the society, when you as an individual try to peer out and see, well, where are my allies, you see all these other people acting on their pathogenic belief, acting as though all they care about is their own self-interest and maximizing their money and power. So what actually ends up happening is that each of us becomes the other to all the others. We are the ones who enforce the reality on each other.

AC: The status quo.

ML: Right. The spiritual status quo, the material status quo, the selfishness status quo. Now, because of that, when any individual acts in the public sphere according to a different standard, they often find themselves laughed at, ridiculed, or just deeply disappointed. Other people have turned their backs on them when they opened themselves and made themselves vulnerable. And as a result, they are fearful of making themselves vulnerable again. So out of fear of that humiliation, people begin to develop a deep cynicism about where everyone else is. I've found that the most cynical people are the ones who, at earlier stages in their life, opened themselves up to hope and were disappointed by others—and often were disappointed by others who themselves had been disappointed by others. So there's a cycle of despair in which we believe that nothing fundamental can happen, and then we convey this to others. And that develops a cynicism.

AC: You express a fiery optimism that displays an unusual strength of conviction in the inherent goodness of the human heart, and you demonstrate that optimism while remaining firmly rooted in the trenches—passionately fighting for true sanity, real equality, and justice for all in a brutal world where man's capacity for selfishness and inhumanity often seems literally overwhelming. Without the kind of optimism that you are grounded in, it would be impossible to fight the good fight for as long and as hard as you have without becoming discouraged and disheartened. What's the source of your enduring optimism, and how can others realize the same strength of conviction that you have to fight the good fight for everyone else's sake?

ML: My own optimism is based on the history of the human experience as I have understood it—in particular, the history of the Jewish people and how we came from being in the most degrading of all possible positions, slaves, to becoming free. And how we shaped our path and faced, over the course of the past thirty-two hundred years, an incredible amount of suffering and pain and yet, at the same time, were able to transcend that and keep going. So the experience of the Jewish people is the one in which my own particular optimism is rooted.

And then, of course, there's an act of faith—because in the end, there is no set of facts about the universe that will be sufficient to generate a basis for either optimism or pessimism. The facts can be arranged in such a way as to sustain an optimistic account, or they can be arranged in such a way as to sustain a pessimistic account. And in the end, there's a faith act there, and the only thing I want to say about that faith act is that it's as much a faith act to choose to believe in the triumph of evil and negativity as it is to choose to have faith in the triumph of hope and goodness.

AC: The experience of enlightenment, or nonduality, reveals to us that what is happening here in this world is only a part of the whole of reality, only a part of the totality. And it is said that the direct experiential knowledge of that totality alone has the power to liberate the individual from the distorting and corrupting influence of the human ego. Indeed, from the perspective of enlightenment, it is only freedom from the fears and desires of the ego that enables the human heart and mind to experience what could be called true objectivity in relationship to all temporal experience. Without that degree of objectivity, how would it be possible to fight the good fight that we all have to fight if this crazy world is really going to change without making important errors of judgment? Interestingly enough, a respected enlightened master, Eckhart Tolle, recently responded to a question I asked him about right action in the world by saying that it absolutely wouldn't be possible for a human being to truly live the Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus, such as "love your neighbor as yourself," unless they were already fully enlightened. What is your view on this?

ML: My view is that there is no possibility of saving this world without overcoming all the distortions that our ego presents to us. And that the more we're able to do so, the more we are potentially able to be engaged in the struggle to transform the world. So spiritual practice, to me, is absolutely central to building a transformative social movement and to sustaining oneself as an agent of transformation. Having said that, I then want to say that from my perspective, most people who claim to be enlightened seem to not be where I would want to be. The reason I say this is that I think there are far too many people in the spiritual world who seem to be involved in a process of overcoming ego that doesn't lead them to action to transform the pain and suffering of everyone around them. And that is a level of consciousness that is not close to what I understand by enlightenment. I simply cannot understand how somebody could be a spiritual being and not be actively involved in transforming the world.

AC: Although there are exceptions, teachers of enlightenment are generally not passionate idealists. In fact, many tell us to be less concerned with the chaos of the world, and more concerned with the cultivation of liberation from it. They say that idealism is merely a construct of the unenlightened mind and that excessive concern about the transformation of the world is a sign of a lack of self-knowledge in the individual. They say that the perfection and wholeness that the idealist strives to manifest in the world is in fact already the inherent state of all things at all times—which the individual would recognize if only they could let go of their need to see things in any particular way, if only they could let go of their idealism. And yet, one of the fundamental tenets of Judaism is Tikkun olam, which is also the name of your magazine—Tikkun. Tikkun olam speaks of the obligation, as you described earlier, to be God's partner in the healing and transformation of the planet. So my question to you is, What is the relationship, if any, between the revelation of wholeness, perfection, and completeness—the revelation of enlightenment—and the commandment to bring the perfect goodness of God into the world through our own actions in the world? What's the relation between the inherent perfection of all things and Tikkun olam?

ML: When one has a true understanding of all of reality, and is present to all of reality, one also understands one's role as part of the unfolding of the goodness of the universe and one's obligation to act to transform and heal it. And that is not in opposition to an understanding of the totality—

AC: But there are some perspectives that would say that any desire to do anything except absolutely nothing is ego. They say that from the highest position there would be no desire whatsoever to do anything other than absolutely nothing.

ML: Yes. But to that I would say, this is a way of doing nothing. This is a way to transcend all ego desire and simply be a manifestation of God in the universe. The way to be a manifestation of God in the universe is to heal and transform the universe, as a transcendence of all desire, ego, and particularity—not as an expression of ego-driven desire.

AC: Teachers of enlightenment often tell us that it is our attachment to the world and to everyone and everything in it that is the root cause of our suffering—of all false and wrong views. They say that true compassion for the world can only be a result of detachment from the world. They say that as long as we are attached to the world, our passions, our lusts, our fears, and our desires will obscure or distort our vision, making the emergence of true or enlightened compassion impossible. At the same time, when we put too much emphasis on the cultivation of detachment, there's always the danger of becoming lost in a not-so-subtle form of spiritual narcissism and even indifference to the suffering in the world. And also, if we all wait until we're fully enlightened and have become perfectly fit vehicles for enlightened compassion before we are ready to respond to the overwhelming needs of this world, nothing will ever change. So in your view, what is the relationship between compassion and detachment in our response to the suffering of the world?

ML: Detachment is an extremely important element in moving to the level from which one can engage in compassionate transformation of the universe. When one is truly detached from one's ego and one's own needs and one's own desires, one can simply be a manifestation of God's energy in the world. And the way that one will be a manifestation of God's energy in the world is to be passionately involved in social change movements to transform the world. But that passion is a passion that is a manifestation of nonattachment to any particular outcome or to a fulfillment of one's own needs. One would merely be a clear vehicle through which God, the energy of the totality of all Being, pours itself out into the universe.

AC: You couldn't say there would be absolutely no investment in any particular outcome. I mean, that would be a little too extreme, wouldn't it? There would still be investment in a positive outcome, wouldn't there?

ML: No ego investment. No personal ego investment. It's not for oneself. And it's not with some illusion, for example, that one is going to make the changes oneself, that oneself is the critical vehicle. Oneself is just one of the billions of divine energy cells of the universe that are working together to manifest the spiritual energy of the universe in a particular way. And that particular way is through the accumulation of greater and greater love and caring, justice, and awareness.

AC: What would you say to those who feel that the greatest blessing that the deeply realized individual can bestow upon humanity and all of life is to silently, in a state of reverence and meditation, infuse the world with his or her love, energy, and consciousness—that that kind of blessing may have the greatest benefit for the world, even though its effects may not be immediately seen, recognized, or felt?

ML: Well, I'd say two things. On one level, I am not in a position to know all the possible ways to serve God and bring God's goodness into the universe. So it seems to me perfectly possible that the total spiritual unfolding of the universe requires both people like me and people like the ones you just described. But the second level of my answer is that, from my limited perspective, I actually don't understand how somebody could be a full manifestation of the goodness and love of the universe and not be so deeply affected by the pain and suffering of others as to want to alleviate it directly. Now, I know that the answer of some people in the traditions you're referring to would be, "Yes, this is the way to alleviate that suffering, through this kind of spiritual practice." To which I would say, "As far as I can see, over the last few thousand years that hasn't actually been working so well in those communities where this kind of view is held by the spiritual leadership." For example, within the Hindu world, I haven't seen the level of suffering decrease so dramatically there. The accounts of suffering that I hear from that world seem not to have been affected enough by that form of spiritual action. So I want a different form of spiritual action, one which, for example, pays attention to not having a caste of people who are untouchables. Or that is concerned about a way of treating women that involves, among other things, having widows throw themselves on the burning funeral pyres of their husbands. There are a number of things that happen in that world in which the suffering of people doesn't seem to have been dramatically decreased by the spiritual traditions. The sensitivity to these issues didn't emerge from the spiritual traditions you're talking about. Now you might say, "Well, that isn't real suffering. The only real suffering is attachment." But from my standpoint, that's another way of saying, "I don't really care about the suffering of certain kinds of people." And to not really care seems to me to be a lower level of consciousness, a consciousness that really doesn't connect to the totality of all Being. So again, from my standpoint, I see many people who put themselves forward as spiritual masters as actually being people who have absorbed a certain amount of powerlessness into their consciousness. I actually believe them to be caring people who have given up on the possibility of eliminating the suffering in the world on any level except the one that they themselves could immediately control—which is very different from what it would take to change the rest of the world. Because to change the rest of the world would mean having to work with other human beings. And when you're working with other human beings, you can't control them. Whereas you have at least a better chance of being able to control what's going on in your own mind. And so because of this despair about the difficulty of working with others to change the world, people then enter into a spiritual tradition which says, "Okay, go as far as you can by yourself." That, I believe, is a misunderstanding of the unity of all Being and the interconnection of all human life; it's actually a spiritual consciousness that isn't evolved enough. I think there needs to be a different level of evolution in which one could get to the point of recognizing that, yes, the world is in pain. It needs healing and the healing requires working with others.

Now once you get to that, you then find this next point: In order to work with others, you're going to have to work with others who are not fully evolved, who are not as developed in their consciousness as you are, let's say. And I want to emphasize here that I don't put myself forward as being at the highest level of that evolution of consciousness myself. But what I argue, what I believe, is that to heal this planet, to save it from the ecological destruction that is facing us, to keep us from the various ways in which we are on a fast-track toward the destruction of the human experiment or the human experience, we are going to have to recognize that we need each other to transform this world. And to need each other means that we have to build social transformation with millions and millions of people who are themselves deformed—psychologically, spiritually, emotionally, at every possible level. In my view, that's all there is on the planet. There is nothing else. There is nobody who hasn't been somewhat spiritually deformed and that includes these people who sometimes put themselves forward as fully realized beings. What's their deformation? That they have given up on hope and have isolated themselves to a point where they think that the highest goal is to get themselves into this place of transformed consciousness and are able, as a result, to turn their back on the pain and suffering of so many others. That is a form of deformation that is every bit as much a deformation in my view as all the other forms of deformation. There's nothing else on the planet but us deformed beings, and it's us deformed beings who are going to have to build the transformation to save this planet from destruction. So consequently, the appropriate attitude is one of much greater compassion for our own failure to be fully at the point of enlightenment and for the failure of everybody else to be fully at the point of enlightenment. The movement that will change this world will be made up of limited, unenlightened human beings who, through more compassion, can move toward that enlightenment. But we can't wait for everyone to achieve it before we act to at least stop the greatest crazinesses that are going on at the present moment.

AC: And part of that compassion is also that uncompromising urgency.

ML: Absolutely.

AC: In your message, there is an interesting paradox. A paradox between your revolutionary call that is defined by an inspiring unwillingness to compromise with the status quo and, at the same time, your plea to always be compassionate with ourselves and others. On one hand, you stress the need to be compassionate, yet on the other hand, you passionately shout, "Hey, everybody, wake up because there's no time to waste." And the waking up you're referring to means right now. So I see a great tension between these two positions: "Be compassionate and gentle with yourself" and, at the same time, "Wake up right now!"

ML: That's exactly right. I think you put it very beautifully. There's a tension. And spiritual life is about balance, and getting the right balance between those two—between, on the one hand, the pull of hearing the spiritual voice of the universe screaming out, "The world can be healed and transformed, and you have to be part of it. You must be a manifestation of the goodness and love of the universe," and on the other hand, the other voice that says, "Be compassionate and recognize the limits that we have, and don't judge, don't be harsh, don't be hurtful toward the ways in which you can't fully transcend. Accept the limitations." And so, yes. These are two different pulls.

AC: Yes, but isn't that "balance" you're referring to actually a completely non-static position—a mysterious place in which both extremes dissolve?

ML: Yes, absolutely.

AC: Because you're describing a position or a place of incredible evolutionary tension.

ML: Yes, the spiritual evolution of the universe moves in this way.

AC: In a previous issue of What Is Enlightenment?, Ken Wilber wrote an article for us called "A Spirituality That Transforms." In that article he describes the difference between what he calls "translative" and "transformative" spirituality. Translative spirituality he defined as that spirituality that consoles the ego or the separate sense of self and gives it a vitally important and empowering sense of purpose, place, and security in what, from the perspective of the ego, seems to be a deeply insecure universe. Transformative spirituality he defined as being not that which consoles the ego but that which literally shatters it. The former he called horizontal spirituality, and the latter he called vertical spirituality. So what I'd like to ask you is, What is the role of translative spirituality in the awakening of humanity to its responsibility to save the world for the sake of all sentient beings and all of life? And what is the role of transformative spirituality in the awakening of humanity to its responsibility to save the world for the sake of all sentient beings and all of life?

ML: First, I don't see these as so counterposed. That is to say, although I very much loved Wilber's distinction, I see them often as occurring in the same human being. People often have both elements within them. Now, with regard to translative spirituality, I believe that the task of overcoming the pain and distortion in the universe involves, on the one hand, healing some of the pain that the ego generates. And on the other, it also involves healing some of the pain that generates the ego. Translative spirituality can work at both of those levels. It can help people overcome some of the ego, and it can also help people have compassion for the levels in which they have ego distortions. And that can be an important element in moving them to a point where they would be open to seeing some changes that are possible in the world. You can't get people to be involved in social transformation when their own personal pain is so overwhelming that they can't see anything but that pain. And translative spiritual consciousness and spiritual practice sometimes can help that. So even though it has some of the elements of accommodating oneself to ego, it can also assuage some of the worst pain that one is facing.

This translative spirituality allows for the development of reformist movements. And a reformist movement can be a really good thing to have at any particular moment. A reformist movement might, for example, save the whales or it might protect the redwoods in northern California. They are really good things to have, but there are limits there. Because truly revolutionary movements, that is, the movements that would actually save the planet from ecological destruction, require something more. They require a new bottom line, a new bottom line of love and caring. And they require a new definition of productivity, efficiency, and rationality in which institutions and social practices are understood to be efficient and productive, not simply to the extent that they maximize money or power but to the extent that they maximize people's capacity to be loving and caring; to be ethically, spiritually, and ecologically sensitive; to be able to respond to the universe in a nonutilitarian way. To respond with awe, wonder, and radical amazement at the grandeur of creation. Now, that consciousness, that ability to go for a new bottom line, cannot be achieved in translative spirituality, because translative spirituality too often reinforces a narrow vision of self-interest. That's why truly revolutionary movements need a transformative spirituality, or what I call an "emancipatory" spirituality. Because the ability to transcend ego enough to see oneself as part of the totality of all, and to see the universe from that consciousness, is critical if we're going to transform this world, to save the world from both ecological destruction and from spiritual degradation. To get that new bottom line, to be able to see oneself as fundamentally part of the totality, requires transformative spirituality. That's a form of spirituality that I think many spiritual traditions tend to encourage, and that's why I believe that the fundamental transformation of the universe is going to be a spiritual transformation.

Source: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3325615509311180866

Wisdom of IMHOTEP in ancient Egypt 4400 years ago

Imhotep (Imhetep, Greek Imouthes), Doctor, Architect, High Priest, Scribe and Vizier to King Djoser

IMHOTEP was the world´s first named philosopher and architect who built Egypt´s first pyramid. He is often recognized as the world´s first doctor, a priest, scribe, sage, poet, astrologer, and a vizier and reigned 2630–2611 BC, the second king of Egypt´s third dynasty. He may have lived under as many as four kings. An inscription on one of that kings statues gives us Imhotep´s titles as the "chancellor of the king of lower Egypt", the "first one under the king", the "administrator of the great mansion", the "hereditary Noble", the "high priest of Heliopolis", the "chief sculptor", and finally the "chief carpenter". From the First Intermediate Period onward Imhotep was also revered as a poet and philosopher.

Written below are IMHOTEP’s teachings made eternal by Time whose wisdom for universal values, reflections, teachings and ethics are relevant to date for the benefit of humanity and our interconnectedness. Let us not forget that first we are humans and the rest is history. Together we can make positive history for the benefit of humanity.

Leadership according to IMHOTEP:

22 If you are a man who leads,

Who controls the affairs of the many,

Seek out every beneficent deed,

That your conduct may be blameless.

Great is justice, lasting in effect,

Unchallenged since the time of Osiris.

One punishes the transgressor of laws,

Though the greedy overlooks this;

Baseness may seize riches,

Yet crime never lands its wares;

In the end it is justice that lasts,

Man says: "It is my father's ground.''

23 If you are mighty, gain respect through knowledge

And through gentleness of speech.

Don't command except as is fitting,

He who provokes gets into trouble.

Don't be haughty, lest you be humbled,

Don't be mute, lest you be chided.

When you answer one who is fuming,

Avert your face, control yourself.

The flame of the hot-heart sweeps across,

He who steps gently, his path is paved.

He who frets all day has no happy moment,

He who's gay all day can't keep house.

24 If you are a man who leads,

Listen calmly to the speech of one who pleads;

Don't stop him from purging his body

Of that which he planned to tell.

A man in distress wants to pour out his heart

More than that his case be won.

About him who stops a plea

One says: "Why does he reject it ?"

Not all one pleads for can be granted,

But a good hearing soothes the heart.

25 Punish firmly, chastise soundly,

Then repression of crime becomes an example;

Punishment except for crime

Turns the complainer into an enemy.

Source: http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/precepts_of_ptahhotep.htm