Skip to main content

Rosh Hashanah: What Has Become Clear To You?

I grew up in England under the notion that I lived in a "Christian" country and went to a "Church of England" school.  So I cannot really speak about Rosh Hashanah with any credibility. However, I am happy to see that this holiday is acknowledged in social media.  

The message is probably simplified in the interfaith community, whereas the deeper meaning and discipline more rigorous for the truly observant.  Yehuda Berg says "The Kabbalists teach that Rosh Hashanah is not a religious event, but a cosmic opening where we can plant the seeds that will determine how our reality will unfold in our new year."

I do feel a newness in September. But the idea that we examine our own actions, for our own judgement, as Berg points out, is very helpful when there is so much violence resulting, in all probability, from our judgement towards the other.

Easy to believe that I am powerless to do anything about the big events, I am brought back to earth by Yehuda Berg's words: 


"Every action we perform is a boomerang we fling out into the universe. Each Rosh Hashanah, all of these many boomerangs return to our lives—all the positive ones and all the negative ones. Moreover, this experience of Rosh Hashanah is not exclusive to any one religion. According to the kabbalistic sages, all humankind shares a heightened experience of Cause."

So who has influenced whom? Who can say that throughout the centuries, our civilization, and our survival has not depended upon inspiration and communication between faiths? Who can claim that our values are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, or Unitarian, exclusively?

May the Universe be blessed by this cosmic opening, and may judgment remain within my own capacity to do what the universe most needs. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.


In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…