Plato's history of Atlantis further detail

Plato's history of Atlantis further detail

1. 600 BC Solon visited the city of Sais and the priests of Egypt
2. He wrote unfinished verse
3. Re Plutarch  his journey was of 10 years duration
4. "I grow in learning as in age"
5. Plato related to Solon
6. Solon described as wisest of the 7 sages
7. Sais connected to the Athens of old
8. Many deluges floods of mankind not just one or a few
9. conflagrations at long intervals--Nile the savior of the remnant of peoples
10. "purging of the earth" shepherds the survivors
11. ignorance of ancient times of the surviving races
12. Classes and casts
13. Priests,artisans,shepherds,husbandmen,hunters, warriors(separated)
14. wisdom imbued and interpenetrated the whole social fabric
15. prophecy and medicine
16. addition of knowledge furthering human health and well being
17. disciples of thje gods
18. Athens predated Egypt by (?) 1000 years
19. histories in Egy corroborate events Ancient Athens puts an end to Atlantis a war of liberation
20. The islands  the center isle described by Plato in the Critias a late and unfinished dialogue
21. Great empire   w/in and out the pillars of Heracles--planned to attack and did so (?) the Athenians (Hellenes)--stood alone agai Atlantis and defeated her  when deserted by her allies
22. single day and night floods and torrents sank Atlantis--sea impassible due to shallow mud
23. 9000 years since this war---Atlantis empire greater than Libya and Asia
24. Descr of Athenians, form of government,use of Hellenic names bny foreigners, t/b used in Solon's unfinished poem

Ignatius Donnelly : Atlantis the Antediluvian World

Ignatius Donnelly : Atlantis the Antediluvian World
http://archive.org/details/atlantis_antediluvian_world_1102_librivox
Here are my most precious notes on the findings of this remarkable book  published in l882 from Chapter 1 the Purpose of the book stating the themes of the book and concur with what I believe in many respects:

Purpose and the 13 propositions of the book:

1. Existence of a large island   is of a truth
2. Plato's description is  veritable history not myth or fable
3. Atlantis the source of all civilizations
4. A populous and mighty nation with overspill of peoples over the face of this globe
5. The true antediluvian world we know as the garden of Eden, Hespserides, the Elysian fields,etc.
6. "Gods of past civilizations" were the 10 kings of Atlantis-mythologies of Greeks and nations were confused accounts given in after ages re mentality of the ancients
7. Mythologies of Egypt and Peru  were remnants of the sun worship of Atlantis
8. Egypt is its oldest colony ( a survival colony)
9. The Bronze or iron age derived from the Atlantaeans
10. Phoenician alphabet derived from them as well and passed to the Mayans
11. Atlantis seat of the Aryan and Semitic peoples
12. Perished in convulsion of nature(?) or a purposive act of heaven?
13. Escapees in rafts and boats -Accounts of the flood legends of the bible and the Sumerians and Akkadians?

If there is truth in the foregoing, then the following follow as necessary corollaries:

• Genesis and the flood accounts are confirmed
• ancient accounts debunking Atlantis as fable prove nothing
• the ancients nearest the past not always the best informed
• ex= the debunking by his contemporaries of his accounts of his travels (Herodotus)
• resurrected esteem held millenia later by the moderns
• Solon's journey and discussion with Egyptian priests are true and not rightly dismissed as fable
• Note the truths behind Pharaoh Necho's expedition.

Esoteric cosmology

Esoteric cosmology


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Esoteric cosmology is cosmology that is an intrinsic part of an esoteric or occult system of thought. Esoteric cosmology maps out the universe with planes of existence and consciousness according to a specific worldview usually from a doctrine.


OverviewEsoteric cosmology almost always deals with at least some of the following themes: emanation, involution, spiritual evolution, epigenesis, planes of existence or higher worlds (and their emanation and the connections between them), hierarchies of spiritual beings, cosmic cycles (e.g., cosmic year, Yuga), yogic or spiritual disciplines and techniques of self-transformation, and references to mystical and altered states of consciousness.[1]




Such cosmologies cover many of the same concerns also addressed by religious cosmology and philosophical cosmology, such as the origin, purpose, and destiny of the universe and of consciousness and the nature of existence. For this reason it is sometimes difficult to distinguish where religion or philosophy end and esotericism or occultism begins. However, esoteric cosmology is distinguished from religion in its more sophisticated construction and reliance on intellectual understanding rather than faith, and from philosophy in its emphasis on techniques of psycho-spiritual transformation.



Examples of esoteric cosmologies can be found in Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Nagualism, Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda), Tantra (especially Kashmir Shaivism), Kabbalah, Sufism, the teachings of Jacob Boehme, The Urantia Book, the Sant Mat/Surat Shabda Yoga tradition, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, The Cosmic Tradition of Max Theon and his wife, Max Heindel (The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception), elements of the teachings of Sri Aurobindo, Meher Baba, the Fourth Way propounded by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, PaGaian Cosmology and many current New Age teachings, to give only a few examples.[2]

Gnosticism
Gnostic teachings were contemporary with those of Neoplatonism. Gnosticism is an imprecise label, covering monistic as well as dualistic conceptions. Usually the higher worlds of Light, called the Pleroma or "fullness", are radically distinct from the lower world of Matter. The emanation of the Pleroma and its godheads (called Aeons) is described in detail in the various Gnostic tracts, as is the pre-creation crisis (a cosmic equivalent to the "fall" in Christian thought) from which the material world comes about, and the way that the divine spark can attain salvation.[3]





Kabbalah
Kabbalah combines orthodox Judaic, Neoplatonic, Gnostic, and philosophical (e.g. Aristotlean) themes, to develop an elaborate and highly symbolic cosmology in which God, who is ineffable and unknowable, manifests as ten archetypal sephirot, each with its own Divine attributes, and arranged in a configuration of interrelated paths called the Tree of Life. The original Tree gives rise to further trees, until there are four or (in Lurianic Kabbalah) five worlds or universes (Trees) in all, with the lowest sephira of the lowest world constituting the material cosmos.



This cosmology proved highly popular with occultists, and formed the basis of Western hermetic thought (e.g. the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and subsequent organisations), where it is associated with a form of astral travel called "pathworking".


Neoplatonism]
Although under Plotinus, Neoplatonism began as a school of philosophy, the teachings of later Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus and Proclus incorporate additional details of the emanation process in terms of the dialectical action of the hypostases and further subdivisions from Plotinus' original three hypostases. Each higher hypostasis constitutes a more sublime deific state of existence. There is also a tendency in later neoplatonic thought towards increasing transcendentalism and dualism. Although Plotinus saw spiritual ascent as leading ultimately to the One (The Absolute), in later Neoplatonism the best one can hope for is irridation of the Soul by the Nous above.




Neoplatonic ideas were later taken up by Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Christianity (Pseudo-Dionysius), and, in the 19th century, Theosophy

Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception
Max Heindel presents in his The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception (1909) an evolutionary process of man and the universe, correlating science with religion. This work of esoteric knowledge contains the fundamentals of the Rosicrucian Philosophy and also deals, among other topics, metaphysics and cosmology. The second part of the book contains the scheme of Evolution in general and the Evolution of the Solar System and the Earth in particular, according to Heindel. In the field of cosmology (Cosmogenisis and Anthropogenesis) it teaches about the Worlds, Globes and Periods, Revolutions and Cosmic Nights related to life waves and human development and also the constitution of our solar system and of the Universe: The Supreme Being, the Cosmic Planes and God.


Theosophy & Anthroposophy
H.P. Blavatsky in her Theosophical writings presented a complex cosmology, in terms of a sevenfold series of cosmic planes and subplanes, and a detailed sevenfold system of cycles and sub-cycles of existence.[4] These ideas were adapted by later esotericists like Rudolf Steiner (Anthroposophy), Max Heindel, Alice Bailey, and Ann Ree Colton, and some of these ideas were included in New Age thought.



Max Theon and the "Cosmic Philosophy"
The occultist Max Theon developed a sophisticated cosmology, incorporating Lurianic Kabbalistic and other themes. This describes a number of divine and material worlds, and four or eight "states" (equivalent to the Theosophical Planes), each divided into degrees, each of which are in turn subdivided into sub-degrees. The details of these various occult worlds, their beings, recognisable colours, and so on, were all laid out, but very little of this material has yet been published.


See alsoSufi cosmology


Plane (cosmology)

The Urantia Book

Nondual

[edit] References1.^ S. K. Basu Encylopaedic Dictionary of Astrophysics 2007, p. 73

2.^ Tim Voigt The Grand Fantasy of Einstein: The Search for the Theory of the Universe 2010

3.^ Rosemary Guiley The encyclopedia of saints 2001, p. 396

4.^ Virginia Hanson H.P. Blavatsky and the Secret Doctrine 1988

Blavatsky, H.P. (1967). Practical Occultism. ISBN 81-7059-076-0. http://www.theosophical.ca/practicalocc.htm.

Blavatsky, H.P. (1972). The Key to Theosophy. ISBN 0-911500-07-3. http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-hp.htm.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1999). Vedic Physics. ISBN 0-9684120-0-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=npIKAAAACAAJ&dq=Vedic+Physics.

[edit] External linksPuranic Vaishnava cosmology - planetarium

Planes of Existence - Kheper website

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence - according to Buddhist cosmology

Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga charts

- Sant Ajaib Singh Ji Memorial Site

- Genesis, Planes of Creation, Positive & Negative Powers

The Great Continuum Of Consciousness according to George A. Boyd

The Visible and Invisible Worlds according to Max Heindel & related Diagrams in The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception

Critias' rendition of Atlantis in Timaeus and Critias

http://archive.org/details/critias_1301_librivox

Critias' rendition of Atlantis in Timaeus and Critias
In Plato's myth, Poseidon fell in love with Cleito, the daughter of Evenor and Leucippe, who bore him five pairs of male twins. The eldest of these, Atlas, was made rightful king of the entire island and the ocean (called the Atlantic Ocean in his honor), and was given the mountain of his birth and the surrounding area as his fiefdom. Atlas's twin Gadeirus, or Eumelus in Greek, was given the extremity of the island towards the pillars of Hercules.[8] The other four pairs of twins—Ampheres and Evaemon, Mneseus and Autochthon, Elasippus and Mestor, and Azaes and Diaprepes—were also given "rule over many men, and a large territory."




Poseidon carved the mountain where his love dwelt into a palace and enclosed it with three circular moats of increasing width, varying from one to three stadia and separated by rings of land proportional in size. The Atlanteans then built bridges northward from the mountain, making a route to the rest of the island. They dug a great canal to the sea, and alongside the bridges carved tunnels into the rings of rock so that ships could pass into the city around the mountain; they carved docks from the rock walls of the moats. Every passage to the city was guarded by gates and towers, and a wall surrounded each of the city's rings. The walls were constructed of red, white and black rock quarried from the moats, and were covered with brass, tin and the precious metal orichalcum, respectively.[9]
Athens defeats the Atlantean slave empire which is engulfed by a flood
According to Critias, 9,000 years before his lifetime a war took place between those outside the Pillars of Hercules at the Strait of Gibraltar and those who dwelt within them. The Atlanteans had conquered the parts of Libya within the Pillars of Hercules as far as Egypt and the European continent as far as Tyrrhenia, and subjected its people to slavery. The Athenians led an alliance of resistors against the Atlantean empire, and as the alliance disintegrated, prevailed alone against the empire, liberating the occupied lands.




But at a later time there occurred portentous earthquakes and floods, and one grievous day and night befell them, when the whole body of your warriors was swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner was swallowed up by the sea and vanished; wherefore also the ocean at that spot has now become impassable and unsearchable, being blocked up by the shoal mud which the island created as it settled down.[10]    9.^ Critias 116bc


10.^ Timaeus 25c–d, Bury translation
John V Luce (1978). "The Literary Perspective". In Edwin S. Ramage. Atlantis, Fact or Fiction?. Indiana University Press. p. 72. ISBN 0-253-10482-3
Rudberg 1917/2012 ref 13


The logographer Hellanicus of Lesbos wrote an earlier work titled Atlantis, of which only a few fragments survive. Hellanicus' work appears to have been a genealogical one concerning the daughters of Atlas[11] (Ἀτλαντὶς in Greek means "of Atlas"), but some authors have suggested a possible connection with Plato's island. John V. Luce notes that when he writes about the genealogy of Atlantis's kings, Plato writes in the same style as Hellanicus and suggests a similarity between a fragment of Hellanicus's work and an account in the Critias.[11] Robert Castleden suggests Plato may have borrowed his title from Hellanicus, and that Hellanicus may have based his work on an earlier work on Atlantis.[12]
Gunnar Rudberg suggested that Plato's try to realize his political ideas in the city of Syracuse, Sicily could have heavily inspired the Atlantis account.[13]

Ancient
Some ancient writers viewed Atlantis as fiction while others believed it was real.[14] The philosopher Crantor, a student of Plato's student Xenocrates, is often cited as an example of a writer who thought the story to be historical fact. His work, a commentary on Plato's Timaeus, is lost, but Proclus, a Neoplatonist of the 5th century AD, reports on it.[15] The passage in question has been represented in the modern literature either as claiming that Crantor actually visited Egypt, had conversations with priests, and saw hieroglyphs confirming the story or as claiming that he learned about them from other visitors to Egypt.[16] Proclus wrote:


15    Timaeus 24a: τὰ γράμματα λαβόντες.


16.^ Cameron 2002

17.^ Castleden 2001, p,168



As for the whole of this account of the Atlanteans, some say that it is unadorned history, such as Crantor, the first commentator on Plato. Crantor also says that Plato's contemporaries used to criticize him jokingly for not being the inventor of his Republic but copying the institutions of the Egyptians. Plato took these critics seriously enough to assign to the Egyptians this story about the Athenians and Atlanteans, so as to make them say that the Athenians really once lived according to that system.

The next sentence is often translated "Crantor adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars [which are narrated by Plato] are written on pillars which are still preserved." But in the original, the sentence starts not with the name Crantor but with the ambiguous He, and whether this referred to Crantor or to Plato is the subject of considerable debate. Proponents of both Atlantis as a myth and Atlantis as history have argued that the word refers to Crantor.[17]


Alan Cameron argues that it should be interpreted as referring to Plato, and that when Proclus writes that "we must bear in mind concerning this whole feat of the Athenians, that it is neither a mere myth nor unadorned history, although some take it as history and others as myth", he is treating "Crantor's view as mere personal opinion, nothing more; in fact he first quotes and then dismisses it as representing one of the two unacceptable extremes".[18]




Cameron also points out that whether he refers to Plato or to Crantor, the statement does not support conclusions such as Otto Muck's "Crantor came to Sais and saw there in the temple of Neith the column, completely covered with hieroglyphs, on which the history of Atlantis was recorded. Scholars translated it for him, and he testified that their account fully agreed with Plato's account of Atlantis" or J. V. Luce's suggestion that Crantor sent "a special enquiry to Egypt" and that he may simply be referring to Plato's own claims.[18]


_________________________________________________________________________________
Another passage from Proclus' commentary on the Timaeus gives a description of the geography of Atlantis:



That an island of such nature and size once existed is evident from what is said by certain authors who investigated the things around the outer sea. For according to them, there were seven islands in that sea in their time, sacred to Persephone, and also three others of enormous size, one of which was sacred to Hades, another to Ammon, and another one between them to Poseidon, the extent of which was a thousand stadia [200 km]; and the inhabitants of it—they add—preserved the remembrance from their ancestors of the immeasurably large island of Atlantis which had really existed there and which for many ages had reigned over all islands in the Atlantic sea and which itself had like-wise been sacred to Poseidon. Now these things Marcellus has written in his Aethiopica".[19]
_________________________________________________________________________________

Marcellus remains unidentified.




Other ancient historians and philosophers believing in the existence of Atlantis were Strabo and Posidonius.[20]

Critias -Dialogue on Atlantis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

http://archive.org/details/critias_1301_librivox   soundbook

AtlantisFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Atlantis (disambiguation).




Athanasius Kircher's map of Atlantis, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. From Mundus Subterraneus 1669, published in Amsterdam. The map is oriented with south at the top.Atlantis (in Greek, Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος, "island of Atlas") is a legendary island first mentioned in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written about 360 BC. According to Plato, Atlantis was a naval power lying "in front of the Pillars of Hercules" that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9600 BC. After a failed attempt to invade Athens, Atlantis sank into the ocean "in a single day and night of misfortune".

Scholars dispute whether and how much Plato's story or account was inspired by older traditions. In Critias, Plato claims that his accounts of ancient Athens and Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt by the legendary Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC. In Egypt, Solon met a priest of Sais, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on papyri in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek. Some scholars argue Plato drew upon memories of past events such as the Thera eruption or the Trojan War, while others insist that he took inspiration from contemporary events like the destruction of Helike in 373 BC[1] or the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC.



The possible existence of a genuine Atlantis was discussed throughout classical antiquity, but it was usually rejected and occasionally parodied by later authors. Alan Cameron states: "It is only in modern times that people have taken the Atlantis story seriously; no one did so in antiquity".[2] The Timaeus remained known in a Latin rendition by Calcidius through the Middle Ages, and the allegorical aspect of Atlantis was taken up by Humanists in utopian works of several Renaissance writers, such as Francis Bacon's New Atlantis and Thomas More's Utopia. Atlantis inspires today's literature, from science fiction to comic books to films. Its name has become a byword for any and all supposed advanced prehistoric lost civilizations

Plato's accountFurther information: Timaeus (dialogue) and Critias (dialogue)




A 15th-century Latin translation of Plato's TimaeusPlato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written in 360 BC, contain the earliest references to Atlantis. For unknown reasons, Plato never completed Critias. Plato introduced Atlantis in Timaeus:



For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles,' there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean. For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean, and the land surrounding it may most rightly be called, in the fullest and truest sense, a continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent.[3]

The four persons appearing in those two dialogues are the politicians Critias and Hermocrates as well as the philosophers Socrates and Timaeus of Locri, although only Critias speaks of Atlantis. In his works Plato makes extensive use of the Socratic dialogues in order to discuss contrary positions within the context of a supposition.



The Timaeus begins with an introduction, followed by an account of the creations and structure of the universe and ancient civilizations. In the introduction, Socrates muses about the perfect society, described in Plato's Republic (c. 380 BC), and wonders if he and his guests might recollect a story which exemplifies such a society. Critias mentions an allegedly historical tale that would make the perfect example, and follows by describing Atlantis as is recorded in the Critias. In his account, ancient Athens seems to represent the "perfect society" and Atlantis its opponent, representing the very antithesis of the "perfect" traits described in the Republic.

Critias
According to Critias, the Hellenic gods of old divided the land so that each god might own a lot; Poseidon was appropriately, and to his liking, bequeathed the island of Atlantis. The island was larger than Ancient Libya and Asia Minor combined,[4][5] but it afterwards was sunk by an earthquake and became an impassable mud shoal, inhibiting travel to any part of the ocean. The Egyptians, Plato asserted, described Atlantis as an island comprising mostly mountains in the northern portions and along the shore, and encompassing a great plain of an oblong shape in the south "extending in one direction three thousand stadia [about 555 km; 345 mi], but across the center inland it was two thousand stadia [about 370 km; 230 mi]." Fifty stadia [9 km; 6 mi] from the coast was a mountain that was low on all sides...broke it off all round about[6]... the central island itself was five stades in diameter [about 0.92 km; 0.57 mi].[7]

Religious Cosmology

BuddhismMain article: Buddhist cosmology


In Buddhism, the universe comes into existence dependent upon the actions (karma) of its inhabitants. Buddhists posit neither an ultimate beginning or final end to the universe, but see the universe as something in flux, passing in and out of existence, parallel to an infinite number of other universes doing the same thing.



The Buddhist universe consists of a large number of worlds which correspond to different mental states, including passive states of trance, passionless states of purity, and lower states of desire, anger, and fear. The beings in these worlds are all coming into existence or being born, and passing out of existence into other states, or dying. A world comes into existence when the first being in it is born, and ceases to exist, as such, when the last being in it dies. The universe of these worlds also is born and dies, with the death of the last being preceding a universal conflagration that destroys the physical structure of the worlds; then, after an interval, beings begin to be born again and the universe is once again built up. Other universes, however, also exist, and there are higher planes of existence which are never destroyed, though beings that live in them also come into and pass out of existence.



As well as a model of universal origins and destruction, Buddhist cosmology also functions as a model of the mind, with its thoughts coming into existence based on preceding thoughts, and being transformed into other thoughts and other states.

Hebrew BibleFurther information: Biblical cosmology and Genesis creation myth


Biblical cosmology is not explicitly described anywhere in the Old Testament and has to be inferred from various passages. The most significant of these is the Genesis creation myth (the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, which depict "heaven and earth" (i.e., the cosmos) as the creation of a single uncreated god called Yahweh (elsewhere depicted as the god of Israel - other nations were recognised as having their own national gods). God creates the cosmos by the power of speech (the repeated "Let there be..." phrase in Genesis 1), and the cosmos, once created, is his physical palace, with the Temple in Jerusalem as its earthly copy. Creation takes place over six days, and is an essence a series of acts in which God brings order to the chaos of "uncreated" matter and renders it fit for habitation. The cosmos thus created consists of a flat, circular earth separated from the infinite waters of chaos (water was the essential chaos-element) by a solid transparent dome.

Christianity/modern JudaismSee also: Biblical cosmology, Ex nihilo, and Creationism


Around the time of Jesus or a little earlier, the Greek idea that God had actually created matter replaced the older idea that matter had always existed, but in a chaotic state. This concept, called creatio ex nihilo, is now the accepted orthodoxy of both Judaism and Christianity. Both Christianity and Judaism claim that a single, uncreated God was responsible for the creation of the cosmos
HINDUISM
The Hindu cosmology and timeline is the closest to modern scientific timelines and even more which might indicate that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes. It also includes an infinite number of universes at one given time.



The Rig Veda questions the origin of the cosmos in: "Neither being (sat) nor non-being was as yet. What was concealed? And where? And in whose protection?…Who really knows? Who can declare it? Whence was it born, and whence came this creation? The devas (demigods) were born later than this world's creation, so who knows from where it came into existence? None can know from where creation has arisen, and whether he has or has not produced it. He who surveys it in the highest heavens, he alone knows-or perhaps does not know." (Rig Veda 10. 129)

The Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb. The Hiranyagarbha is alternatively viewed as Brahma, the creator who was in turn created by God, or as God (Brahman) himself. The universe is considered to constantly expand since creation and disappear into a thin haze after billions of years.[citation needed] An alternate view is that the universe begins to contract after reaching its maximum expansion limits until it disappears into a fraction of a millimeter.[citation needed] The creation begins anew after billions of years (Solar years) of non-existence.




The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Similarly at a given time there are an infinite number of Brahma's performing the creation of each of these universes that are infinite in number. Brahma is the creator but not necessarily regarded as God in Hinduism. He is mostly regarded as a creation of God / Brahman

We are currently[when?] believed to be in the 51st year of the present Brahma and so about 156 trillion years have elapsed since He was born as Brahma. After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Years) pass until a new Brahma is born and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever.




Brahma's day is divided in one thousand cycles (Maha Yuga, or the Great Year). Maha Yuga, during which life, including the human race appears and then disappears, has 71 divisions, each made of 14 Manvantara (1000) years. Each Maha Yuga lasts for 4,320,000 years. Manvantara is Manu's cycle, the one who gives birth and governs the human race.



Each Maha Yuga consists of a series of four shorter yugas, or ages. The yugas get progressively worse from a moral point of view as one proceeds from one yuga to another. As a result, each yuga is of shorter duration than the age that preceded it. The current Kali Yuga (Iron Age) began at midnight 17 February / 18 February in 3102 BC in the proleptic Julian calendar.

Space and time are considered to be maya (illusion). What looks like 100 years in the cosmos of Brahma could be thousands of years in other worlds, millions of years in some other worlds and 311 trillion and 40 billion years for our solar system and earth.


IslamMain articles: Islamic cosmology and Sufi Cosmology


Islam preaches that God, or Allah, created the universe, including Earth's physical environment and human beings. The highest goal is to visualize the cosmos as a book of symbols for meditation and contemplation for spiritual upliftment or as a prison from which the human soul must escape to attain true freedom in the spiritual journey to God.[1]



Below here there are some other citations from the Quran on cosmology.



"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" 21:30 Yusuf Ali translation



"The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it." 21:104 Yusuf Ali tra

JainismMain article: Jain cosmology

Jain cosmology considers the loka, or universe, as an uncreated entity, existing since infinity, having no beginning or an end.[2] Jain texts describe the shape of the universe as similar to a man standing with legs apart and arm resting on his waist. This Universe, according to Jainism, is narrow at the top, broad at the middle and once again becomes broad at the bottom.[3]



Mahāpurāṇa of Ācārya Jinasena is famous for this quote: "Some foolish men declare that a creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression

Chinese mythologyMain articles: Chinese creation myth and Tian

There is a "primordial universe" Wuji (philosophy), and Hongjun Laozu, water or qi.[4][5] It transformed into Taiji and multiplied into everything.[6][7] The Pangu legend tells a formless chaos coalesced into a cosmic egg. Pangu emerged (or woke up) and separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. After Pangu died, he became everything.

Golden Ratio,Later Influence

Golden Ratio

"For whenever in any three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to the last term what the first term is to it; and again, when the mean is to the first term as the last term is to the mean—then the mean becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means, they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having become the same with one another will be all one" (31c - 32a); thereby he implies the aesthetically perfect proportion known as Golden ratio or Golden mean


Later influence

Medieval manuscript of Calcidius' Latin Timaeus translation.The Timaeus was translated into Latin by Cicero,[6] and the first part (to 53c) was again translated by Calcidius circa 321 AD. Calcidius' partial translation of the Timaeus was the only Platonic dialogue, and one of the few works of classical natural philosophy, available to Latin readers in the early Middle Ages. Thus it had a strong influence on medieval Neoplatonic cosmology and was commented on particularly by 12th century Christian philosophers of the Chartres School, such as Thierry of Chartres and William of Conches, who interpreting it in the light of the Christian faith understood the dialogue to refer to a creatio ex nihilo.[7]

composition of the four elements Timaeus

The ElementsTimaeus claims that the minute particle of each element had a special geometric shape: tetrahedron (fire), octahedron (air), icosahedron (water), and cube (earth).






Tetrahedron (fire) Octahedron (air) Icosahedron (water) Cube (earth)



The Timaeus makes conjectures on the composition of the four elements which some ancient Greeks thought constituted the physical universe: earth, water, air, and fire. Timaeus links each of these elements to a certain Platonic solid: the element of earth would be a cube, of air an octahedron, of water an icosahedron, and of fire a tetrahedron.[5] Each of these perfect polyhedra would be in turn composed of trianagular faces the 30-60-90 and the 45-45-90 triangles. The faces of each element could be broken down into its component right-angled triangles, either isosceles or scalene, which could then be put together to form all of physical matter. Particular characteristics of matter, such as water's capacity to extinguish fire, was then related to shape and size of the constituent triangles. The fifth element (i.e. Platonic solid) was the dodecahedron, whose faces are not triangular, and which was taken to represent the shape of the Universe as a whole, possibly because of all the elements it most approximates a sphere, which Timaeus has already noted was the shape into which God had formed the Universe..



The extensive final part of the dialogue addresses the creation of humans, including the soul, anatomy, perception, and transmigration of the soul.

The Creation of the World Soul

The Creation of the World Soul
Timaeus then explains how the soul of the world was created (Plato's following discussion is obscure, and almost certainly intended to be read in light of the Sophist). The demiurge combined three elements: two varieties of Sameness (one indivisible and another divisible), two varieties of Difference (again, one indivisible and another divisible), and two types of Being (or Existence, once more, one indivisible and another divisible). From this emerged three compound substances, intermediate (or mixed) Being, intermediate Sameness, and intermediate Difference. From this compound one final substance resulted, the World Soul.[4] He then divided following precise mathematical proportions, cutting the compound lengthways, fixed the resulting two bands in their middle, like in the letter Χ (chi), and connected them at their ends, to have two crossing circles. The demiurge imparted on them a circular movement on their axis: the outer circle was assigned Sameness and turned horizontally to the right, while the inner circle was assigned to Difference and turned diagonally and to the left (34c-36c).




The demiurge gave the primacy to the motion of Sameness and left it undivided; but he divided the motion of Difference in six parts, to have seven unequal circles. He prescribed these circles to move in opposite directions, three of them with equal speeds, the others with unequal speeds, but always in proportion. These circles are the orbits of the heavenly bodies: the three moving at equal speeds are the Sun, Venus and Mercury, while the four moving at unequal speeds are the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (36c-d). The complicated pattern of these movements is bound to be repeated again after a period called a 'complete' or 'perfect' year (39d).



Then, the demiurge connected the body and the soul of the universe: he diffused the soul from the center of the body to its extremities in every direction, allowing the invisible soul to envelop the visible body. The soul began to rotate and this was the beginning of its eternal and rational life (36e).



Therefore, having been composed by Sameness, Difference and Existence (their mean), and formed in right proportions, the soul declares the sameness or difference of every object it meets: when it is a sensible object, the inner circle of the Diverse transmit its movement to the soul, where opinions arise, but when it is an intellectual object, the circle of the Same turns perfectly round and true knowledge arises (37a-c).

Four elements

Properties of the Universe


Plato's Atlantis described in Timaeus and CritiasTimaeus describes the substance as a lack of homogeneity or balance, in which the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) were shapeless, mixed and in constant motion. Considering that order is favourable over disorder, the essential act of the creator was to bring order and clarity to this substance. Therefore, all the properties of the world are to be explained by the demiurge's choice of what is fair and good; or, the idea of a dichotomy between good and evil.



First of all, the world is a living creature. Since the unintelligent creatures are in their appearance less fair than intelligent creatures, and since intelligence needs to be settled in a soul, the demiurge "put intelligence in soul, and soul in body" in order to make a living and intelligent whole. "Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God" (30a-b).



Then, since the part is imperfect compared to the whole, the world had to be one and only. Therefore, the demiurge did not create several worlds, but a single unique world (31b).



The creator decided also to make the perceptible body of the universe by four elements, in order to render it proportioned. Indeed, in addition to fire and earth, which make bodies visible and solid, a third element was required as a mean: "two things cannot be rightly put together without a third; there must be some bond of union between them". Moreover, since the world is not a surface but a solid, a fourth mean was needed to reach harmony: therefore, the creator placed water and air between fire and earth. "And for these reasons, and out of such elements which are in number four, the body of the world was created, and it was harmonised by proportion" (31-33).



As for the figure, the demiurge created the world in the geometric form of a globe. Indeed, the round figure is the most perfect one, because it comprehends or averages all the other figures and it is the most omnimorphic of all figures: "he [the demiurge] considered that the like is infinitely fairer than the unlike" (33b).



The creator assigned then to the world a rotatory or circular movement, which is the "most appropriate to mind and intelligence" on account of its being the most uniform (34a).



Finally, he created the soul of the world, placed that soul in the center of the world's body and diffused it in every direction. Having thus been created as a perfect, self-sufficient and intelligent being, the world is a god (34b).

Timaeus Nature of the Physical World Purpose of the Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_%28dialogue%29#Introduction

Nature of the Physical World
Timaeus begins with a distinction between the physical world, and the eternal world. The physical one is the world which changes and perishes: therefore it is the object of opinion and unreasoned sensation. The eternal one never changes: therefore it is apprehended by reason (28a).




The speeches about the two worlds are conditioned by the different nature of their objects. Indeed, "a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed," (29b), while a description of what changes and is likely, will also change and be just likely. "As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief" (29c). Therefore, in a description of the physical world, one "should not look for anything more than a likely story" (29d).



Timaeus suggests that since nothing "becomes or changes" without cause, then the cause of the universe must be a demiurge or a god, a figure Timaeus refers to as the father and maker of the universe. And since the universe is fair, the demiurge must have looked to the eternal model to make it, and not to the perishable one (29a). Hence, using the eternal and perfect world of "forms" or ideals as a template, he set about creating our world, which formerly only existed in a state of disorder.
Purpose of the Universe
Timaeus continues with an explanation of the creation of the universe, which he ascribes to the handiwork of a divine craftsman. The demiurge, being good, wanted there to be as much good as was the world. The demiurge is said to bring order out of substance by imitating an unchanging and eternal model (paradigm). The ananke, often translated as 'necessity', was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony. Later Platonists clarified that the eternal model existed in the mind of the Demiurge.




(Later in history the term "demiurge" became a term of vilification by Gnostics who purported that the demiurge was a fallen and ignorant god creating a flawed universe, but this was not how Plato was using the term.)

.The rule of the Thirty

Thirty TyrantsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For Trebellius Pollio's list in the Historia Augusta, see Thirty Tyrants (Roman).




The Thirty Tyrants (Ancient Greek: οἱ τριάκοντα τύραννοι) were a pro-Spartan oligarchy installed in Athens after its defeat in the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC. Contemporary Athenians referred to them simply as "the oligarchy" or "the Thirty" (Ancient Greek: οἱ Τριάκοντα); the expression "Thirty Tyrants" is due to later historians.[1] Its two leading members were Critias and Theramenes.






The rule of the ThirtyThe Thirty severely reduced the rights of Athenian citizens. Imposing a limit on the number of citizens allowed to vote (limiting the franchise for example to the wealthiest citizens) was a standard move on the part of wealthy people who objected to being subject to the votes of the "rabble" in a broad-based democracy where all free adult males could vote. Participation in legal functions—which had previously been open to all Athenians—was restricted by the 30 to a select group of 500 persons. Only 3,000 Athenians were granted the right to carry weapons or receive a jury trial.




The Thirty Tyrants forced many Athenians into exile and threw their leaders into jail.



The Thirty began a purge of important leaders of the popular party during the Peloponnesian War. Hundreds were condemned to execution by drinking hemlock, while thousands more were exiled from Athens. One of the most famous men who escaped from Athens during this reign of terror was the wealthy Lysias, who was mentioned in Plato's Republic.



In Plato's Apology, Socrates recounts an incident in which the Thirty once ordered him (and four other men) to bring before them Leon of Salamis, a man known for his justice and upright character, for execution. While the other four men obeyed, Socrates refused, not wanting to partake in the guilt of the executioners. By disobeying, Socrates knew he was placing his own life in jeopardy, and claimed it was only the disbanding of the oligarchy soon afterward that saved his life (Apology 32c-d).



As a result of the Phyle Campaign the Thirty Tyrants were overthrown. A group of exiles led by the general Thrasybulus after setting out from Thebes in 403 BC ended their regime of just over a year. After the Thirty had been overthrown in a coup that killed Critias, Lysias accused Eratosthenes of the murder of Lysias' brother Polemarchus.



[edit] Mention of the ThirtyCicero in his treatises about aging, friendship and duties, mentions that Socrates was condemned to death "at a time when Athens had more tyrants than a tyrant has bodyguards".


List of the ThirtyThe names of the Thirty are listed by Xenophon:[2]




Aeschines of Athens, of the Kekropis tribe (not the famous orator)

Anaetius

Aresias

Aristoteles (also a member of the Four Hundred and mentioned in Plato's Parmenides)

Chaereleos

Charicles, son of Apollodorus

Chremo

Cleomedes, son of Lycomedes

Critias

Diocles

Dracontides

Erasistratus of Acharnae

Eratosthenes

Eucleides

Eumathes

Hiero

Hippolochus

Hippomachus

Melobius

Mnesilochus

Mnesitheides

Onomacles

Peison

Phaedrias

Pheido

Polychares

Sophocles (an Athenian orator, not the playwright)

Theogenes

Theognis

Theramenes, son of Hagnon, of the tribe Pandionis, in the deme of Steiria

[edit] References
1.^ Rhodes (2006) 257.

2.^ Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.2.

Bibliography Bultgrighini, U. Maledetta democrazia: Studi su Crizia (Alessandria, 1999).

Németh, G. Kritias und die Dreißig Tyrannen: Untersuchungen zur Politik und Prosopographie der Führungselite in Athen 404/403 v.Chr. (Stuttgart, 2006).

Rhodes, P. A History of the Classical Greek World: 478-323 BC (Blackwell, 2006).

Usher, S. 'Xenophon, Critias and Theramenes' in: JHS 88 (1968) 128-135.

B"H


What's Happening





Order your Shmurah Matza from Chabad $15.00 per lb paid at pickup Otherwise $18per lb. 602.944.2753





Story







“It is Purim Today--L’Chaim!”





Purim had arrived, and a poverty-stricken Jew who lived in a village on the outskirts of the town of Koznitz lacked the means to purchase the basic necessities for the festive Purim feast held on the afternoon of the holiday. He felt terrible about it, especially for his wife and children--that such a happy day should turn into a depressing one with no celebration to look forward to.



“Oh, well,” he thought to himself; “at least I should do the mitzvah of hearing the Megillah in the best possible manner. Of the four special mitzvot of the day—hearing Megillat Esther, giving money and gifts to the poor, sending portions (mishlo’ach manot) of food and drink to friends, enjoying a Purim feast—it is the only one that does not cost any money. I’ll walk to town early in the morning and hear the Reading from the Rebbe himself!”



‘The Rebbe’ was Rabbi Yisrael [named for the Baal Shem Tov because of his miraculous birth, but that’s a different story for another time—ed.], the famous Maggid (‘preacher’) of Koznitz. The Maggid did not appoint a reader from among the knowledgeable members of the congregation, preferring to read it aloud himself from a scroll for the benefit of all assembled. The villager, although by no means a scholar, found this special reading to be inspiring. Despite his untenable financial situation, he began to be filled with the unique joy and good feelings of the Purim festival. But then….



After the Reading, everyone lined up to pass by the Rebbe and exchange individual holiday greetings with him. When our villager approached, the Maggid said to him, “Aren’t you from the village just outside town? Well, then, why did you not bring me Mishlo’ach Manot, as is traditional?”



The poor man’s newly acquired good spirits crashed. He stood, mouth agape, in stunned silence. He couldn’t even afford a half loaf of bread for his children; how was he supposed to bring the Rebbe a present, even if that was what everyone else on the line was doing?



“Alright, my friend,” smiled the Rebbe, “don’t be sad. It is Purim today, after all. Everyone is invited to my house; come join us for a bite and a bit of whisky.”



He didn’t have to be invited twice, especially for the l’chaim part. As he cheerfully toasted two or three times, his cheerful Purim mood was quickly restored. [He lifted some spirits to lift his spirits!—ed.] Another cup or two and he was seized with a clever idea, as well as the chutzpah (nerve) to put it into action.



He excused himself from the table, and off he went to the nearby house of a wealthy wine merchant. When the man opened his door, the villager saluted him with an enthusiastic “Happy Purim, my dear fellow Jew!” Then he followed with “Please give me a nice bottle of wine on credit. Of course I’ll pay you back. But if Heaven forbid it should happen that I don’t, well, it’s Purim today, isn’t it? Merry Purim! L’chaim!”



The astounded merchant gave him a bottle with a shrug, a big smile and a “Happy Purim!” of his own. Our man, pleased with his success, went on with a bit more confidence to the fruit and vegetable store.



“Merry Purim, friend! Please give me a few juicy red apples on credit. Of course I’ll pay you back. But if Heaven forbid it should happen that I don’t, well, it’s Purim today, isn’t it? Happy Purim!”

The F&V man also became caught up in the visitor’s enthusiasm and good cheer, and presented him with two large apples.



The villager ran as fast as he could back to the Maggid’s house, and with a grin of satisfaction presented him with the wine and apples. “Happy Purim, holy rebbe, and L’Chaim! Here is Mishlo’ach Manot for you from me.”

“Well done!” responded the Maggid. “You should remember every Purim to bring me Mishlo’ach manot.”



* * *



Thrilled with his good fortune in obtaining Mishlo’ach Manot for the Rebbe, the Jew decided to push his luck further. “My poor family is sitting alone at home, starving. They have no Purim joy at all. Let’s see if I can take care of them too.”



He strode over to the local liquor vendor and tried his same formula again. “Happy Purim, my brother! Please give me a bottle for l’chaim, on credit. Of course I’ll pay you back. But if Heaven forbid it should happen that I don’t, well, it’s Purim today, isn’t it? Merry Purim! And l’chaim!”



The owner laughed and gave him a bottle of plum brandy. This, in turn, inspired the flushed visitor to continue on to the bakery. “Happy Purim, friend! Please give me a large braided loaf on credit. Of course I’ll pay you back. But if Heaven forbid it should happen that I don’t, well, it’s Purim today, isn’t it? Merry Purim!”

It worked. Now all he needed was a main dish. He decided to try the nearby grocery store. “Happy Purim, friend! Please give me some delicious fat herring on credit. Of course I’ll pay you back. But if Heaven forbid it should happen that I don’t, well, it’s Purim today, isn’t it? Merry Purim!”



The grocer cheerfully obliged, and the Jew set out for home with both hands filled with goodies. Arriving just at the traditional hour for the meal, he burst in the door, proclaiming loudly, “It’s Purim today, it’s Purim today. Happy Purim, dear fanily. L’chaim!”



His wife and children never expected to see him in such a joyful, excited mood. They couldn’t imagine what had happened to him and worried greatly-- had he “flipped out,” lost his mind from the desperation of poverty on Purim Day?



He, however, was oblivious to the obvious concern on their faces, and continued his cheerful patter. Then he set out on the table the bread, fish and liquor that he had acquired, and told them to “sit, and eat, drink, feel good and be merry; it’s Purim today! Happy Purim. L’chaim!”



Whatever had happened, they weren’t about to refuse this enticing invitation. They set to with gusto as he sat down and joined them. After a few sips of L’chaim they too began to happily enter the spirit of the day, and soon they all jumped up and started dancing around the table, holding hands and singing loudly “Purim today! Purim today!”



* * *



Round and round they went on in this vein for quite a while, until suddenly they heard knocking at their door.

“Don’t open,” he instructed his wife. It is probably someone ignorant of Purim that wants to ruin our celebration.”



But the knocking didn’t stop. Finally, his wife said to him, “I think I know who is there. It’s that elderly non-Jew who lives near the forest and regularly comes around to sell us potatoes from his garden. I am going to open the door for him.”



She did so and indeed it was him, but he was bruised and bleeding and appeared seriously injured. They quickly administered to him and washed and dressed his wounds as best they could, then gave him some of their food and a cup of the brandy [and perhaps said to him, ‘L’chaim’ and ‘Happy Purim’—ed.].



After he ate and drank, he thanked them: “You restored me to life! I was a moment away from death out there.” He went on to explain to them what had happened.



“My only son did this to me! He wanted me to advance him a large sum from his eventual inheritance, and when I refused to do so he beat me nearly to death and then threw me out into the freezing cold. I couldn’t find anyone to help me except you.



“And since my son has turned out to be a cruel murderer and ingrate, I will never let him get his hands on any of my money. And since you were the only ones who cared enough to help me, I will show you where I have my fortune hidden in the forest. It is likely I will die soon from these injuries, and if I do, you can take the money as a present in gratitude for your kindness.”



The Jew accompanied him into the forest and noted the tree under which the injured man said he buried his wealth. A few days later the man did indeed die as a result of the vicious beating. The week after that the Jew went into the forest and dug up the strong-box. It turned out to contain a small fortune—he was now, suddenly, a rich man.



The next Purim he returned to Koznitz and presented the Maggid with a large basket filled with expensive items of food and drink, and a generous monetary donation as well.



And so he did every Purim after that too. L’chaim and Happy Pour’em!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Source: Translated and adapted by Yerachmiel Tilles from Sipurei Chasidim-Moadim by Rabbi S. Y. Zevin, and expanded based on respected oral sources. DO NOT reprint or publish in any form without written permission from . Yes, you can pass the email along.]



Biographical note:

Rabbi Yisrael Haupstein, 1737- 14 Tishrei 1814, 'the Maggid' of Koznitz, a major disciple of the Rebbe Reb Elimelech, and author of the chassidic-kabbalistic work, 'Avodas Yisrael' and other books. His miraculous birth is the subject of a popular Baal Shem Tov story.


http://ascentofsafed.com/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi?Name=rebbeBios

Five misfortunes befell our forefathers on the 17th of Tammuz,

Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe


Courtesy of MeaningfulLife.com

Share

PrintE-mail Discuss (4)Our sages tell us that "Five misfortunes befell our forefathers on the 17th of Tammuz," the first of which was Moses' breaking of the Tablets in wake of Israel's worship of the Golden Calf. Many centuries later, this was also the day on which the walls of Jerusalem were breached, enabling the enemy's conquest of the city, and leading to the destruction of the Holy Temple three weeks later on the 9th of Av. Ever since, Tammuz 17 and Av 9 are both fast days, and the three week period between them a time of sadness and mourning.



The Golden Calf, then, started it all. Indeed, that infamous betrayal, coming just a few weeks after the people of Israel stood at Sinai and heard G-d proclaim, "I am the L-rd your G-d... you shall have no other gods before Me," has become a prototype in the sayings of our sages for every sort bad and negative thing -- including things that, on the face of it, don't even seem that terrible. Let us examine two such sayings:



The first is from the Talmudic tractate Sefer Torah, 1:8



Seventy sages translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy. That day was as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made; for the Torah could not be fully translated.



The second is also from the Talmud, tractate Shabbat Shabbat 13b and 17a:



A count was conducted, and it was found that the sages of Shammai were more numerous than the sages of Hillel. Eighteen ordinances were enacted on that day... and that day was as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made.



Surely the translation of the Torah into a foreign language is not, in itself, undesirable. According to the Midrash Tanchuma, more than a thousand years before King Ptolemy ordered the translation of the Torah into Greek, Moses had already, by Divine command, translated the Torah into the seventy languages of the world. Nor can it be said that the Greek language is particularly problematic for Torah's translation, as Greek is one of the seventy basic languages into which the Torah was translated by Moses. In fact, the Talmud states that, of all languages, Greek is the most suited for the translation of Torah (Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 1:9).



So what is it about the translation ordered by Ptolemy that was so "difficult for the people of Israel"? And why does the Talmud compare it to one of the greatest tragedies of Jewish history--"the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made"?



The making of the Golden Calf is also cited as a model for another "difficult day" in Jewish history: the day on which the disciples of the Shammai outnumbered the disciples of Hillel. The Torah decrees that, in cases of disagreement between the sages, one should "follow the majority." The disciples of Hillel were more numerous than the disciples of Shammai, so that the final ruling on the disputations between these two schools of Torah scholarship almost always follows the more lenient approach of Hillel. On one occasion, however, the disciples of Shammai constituted the majority of sages in the study hall, and eighteen laws were enacted following their stricter interpretation of Torah law. "That day," says the Talmud, "was as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made."



Again, the comparison with the Golden Calf seems extreme, if not inappropriate. The enactment of these laws might have "burdened" us with additional and stricter prohibitions, but the even 365 basic prohibitions of the Torah can be said to be "difficult" until one appreciates their value as Divine guidelines for a constructive and meaningful life. The eighteen Shammaian laws were enacted in full accordance with the authority vested by the Torah in the sages: from the moment they were put to vote and a majority of the sages endorsed them, they became part of Torah law, as binding and crucial to the Jew as the most basic of the Torah's precepts. So why does the Talmud consider the event to be "as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made"?



The Making of the Calf



The Golden Calf was made by Moses' brother, Aaron, on the 16th day of the month of Tammuz, in the year 2448 from creation (1313 bce).



Forty days earlier, Moses had ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah from G-d. Due to a miscalculation, the children of Israel expected him to return on the morning of the 16th of Tammuz (after 40 days on the mountain, counting the day of the ascent), instead of the morning of the 17th (after 40 days, not counting the day of the ascent). When Moses failed to appear when expected, "They massed upon Aaron, and said to him: Arise! Make us a god that shall walk before us. For the man Moses, who brought us up out of the land of Egypt -- we do not know what has become of him" (Exodus 32:1).



When Aaron saw that the people could not be dissuaded from their plan, he took charge of operation himself in the hope of postponing the actual worship of the idol. He collected their gold and smelted it into the form of a calf. He then announced: "Tomorrow is a festival unto G-d!" "Tomorrow" was the 17th of Tammuz, the date of Moses' return from Mount Sinai.



Were it not for the people's all-consuming enthusiasm for their new idol, which roused them from their beds at the crack of dawn the next morning, the 17th of Tammuz would indeed have been "a festival unto G-d" in the sense that Aaron had intended -- the day on which Moses prevented Israel's error and rededicated them to the true service of G-d. But when Moses descended from the mountain, the deed was already done. The people of Israel had violated their newly-made covenant with G-d.



Now we understand why the Talmud compares the day of the Torah's translation into Greek and the day of Shammai's triumph over Hillel to "the day on which the Calf was made," as opposed to the day on which it was actually worshipped. The day on which the Golden Calf was worshipped was the most tragic day in Jewish history -- the day that spawned all subsequent regressions and calamities experienced by our people. But on Tammuz 16, the day on which the Golden Calf was made, this was still a calamity in potential, with an equal potential for its prevention, and even its transformation into a positive occurrence.



The Quest for Divinity



What led the people of Israel to worship an icon of gold? If they were seeking a replacement for Moses, why did they not appoint another leader in his place? What is the connection between the perceived "disappearance" of Moses and their desire for a material representation of divinity?



Chassidic teaching explains that Moses was more than a leader to the people of Israel: he was a living model of the Divine immanence. As the Torah attests, Moses was an ish elokim ("man of G-d") a human being who so completely conformed to the Divine will, who so completely negated his self to G-d, that his mind, his personality, his very being, were pure, unadulterated expressions of the Divine truth (Deuteronomy 33:1, as per Midrash Rabbah, Devarim 11:4). In Moses, the people of Israel perceived how "There is none else besides Him": how a creature as individualistic and self-centered as man can manifest the truth that, in essence, he is but a ray of the Divine light.



With Moses' "disappearance," the people of Israel felt the need for a visual, tactual exemplar of the all-pervasiveness of G-d. But this time they wanted a physical object as their prototype, in the belief that this would constitute an even greater testimony to the truth that "There is none else besides Him." If we take an icon of gold, they reasoned, the epitome of materiality, and hallow it as a representation of the Divine immanence, this will truly demonstrate how even the most mundane being is not separate from the Divine reality.



Indeed, several months later, the people of Israel were instructed to do just that: to construct a "sanctuary" for G-d out of fifteen physical materials, the most dominant of which was gold. At the heart of the Sanctuary was to stand the gold-plated ark, topped by two keruvim (cherubs) hammered out of a block of solid gold. The golden keruvim symbolized the relationship between G-d and Israel and marked the seat of G-d's manifest presence within the physical universe. Furthermore, Israel's construction of this Sanctuary was to serve as their atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf!



Why was the Golden Calf the gravest of sins and the most perfidious of betrayals, while the golden keruvim were the epitome of holiness? Often, an extremely fine line distinguishes between the purest truth and the most distortive falsehood. Though ostensibly similar, the keruvim were the very antithesis of the Golden Calf.



When G-d commands to construct a material receptacle for His presence, it becomes a holy, G-dly object; when man chooses a material representation of the Divine presence, this is idolatry--a detraction from, rather than an affirmation of, the truth that "There is none else besides Him." For it is not the sanctified object that expresses the all-pervasiveness of G-d, but the fact that it is serving as an instrument of mans fulfillment of the Divine will.



Where there is a Divine command to make a certain physical object or do a certain physical deed, the fulfillment of this commandment attests that the Divine will has permeated the whole of creation, down to and including the object or deed that realizes it. Where there is no such command, only the human choice of a certain object or ritual to embody mans relationship with G-d, this is idolatry--the attribution of Divine qualities to something other than G-d Himself.



(Indeed, the essence of idolatry is not the denial of G-d's existence and supreme power, but the veneration of "other gods before Me"--the attribution of Divine significance to anything other than G-d. If man, by his own initiative, chooses a certain object or force as a representation of the Divine or as a vehicle of relationship with G-d, this is idolatry--see Mishneh Torah, Laws regarding Idol Worship, 1:1-2)



The Thirteen Imprecisions



Therein lies the parallel between the making of the Golden Calf and the translation of the Torah into Greek.



When G-d commanded Moses to translate the Torah into the languages of the world, this achieved the introduction of the word of G-d into all strata of human existence. Words and idioms, distilled from the most foreign of cultures and lifestyles, became a "sanctuary" housing the Divine wisdom. This was a Divine endeavor, achieved via Moses--the same medium through which G-d first "translated" His supra-literary truth into the words of the Holy Tongue.



But when the seventy sages translated the Torah at Ptolemy's behest, this was a human endeavor, initiated by a mortal ruler. As such, it boded the possibility of becoming a Golden Calf--a humanly-defined vessel for the Divine truth. There existed the danger that instead of faithfully conforming to their sacred content, the foreign garments in which the Torah was being dressed would allow the distortion of its original sense.



Thus, the day that the Torah was translated into Greek was "as difficult as the day on which the Golden Calf was made." The Golden Calf was not an idol until it was worshipped the following morning; but the potential for idolatry was there--for the pagan feast that Moses found upon his descent from the mountain as opposed to the "a festival for G-d" that Aaron had hoped for. By the same token, the Torah's translation into Greek constituted the introduction of a dangerous "otherness" to Torah, with the potential for subsequent distortion of the Divine truth.



This time, however, the negative possibilities of the endeavor were averted, or at least greatly minimized. The Talmud relates that Ptolemy isolated the seventy sages in seventy different houses to prevent their collaboration on an imprecise translation: the Hellenic king wanted a literal rendering of the Torah, so that he and his scholars would be free to interpret it according to their own understanding and not be dictated by the Mosaic tradition of the Jews. Nevertheless, the seventy translators departed from the literal meaning of the Torah's words in thirteen places where such a translation would be open to misinterpretation, each independently recognizing the problematic places and substituting an identical word or phrase which, while not a precise translation from the Hebrew into the Greek, was a faithful rendition of the Torah's intent.



This is the deeper meaning of the Talmud's words that the "difficulty" lay in that "the Torah could not be fully translated." Had the seventy sages fully -- that is, precisely and exactly translated the Torah into Greek, it would have been exposed to misinterpretation and distortion. It was only because they succeeded in presenting Ptolemy with a less than literal translation that this tragedy was averted. Indeed, their translation yielded the positive result of bringing G-d's word to the Greek world, and showing the way for the subsequent translators of Torah who would spread the light of Torah to all peoples and cultures of the earth.



The World According to Hillel



The parallel between the Golden Calf and the Torah's translation into Greek is an extremely subtle one: the first was outright idolatry, the gravest of sins proscribed by the Torah; the second was a permissible, and, in many ways, beneficial, endeavor to expand the influence of the Torah in the world. Nevertheless, the potential danger of the translation is, in essence, the very same danger posed by idolatry: the introduction of a foreign element into our relationship with G-d, an "otherness" that belies the Divine exclusivity expressed by the axiom of our faith, "There is none other beside Him."



Even more subtle is the parallel between the making of the Golden Calf and the triumph of Shammai over Hillel in eighteen disputations of Torah law. For here we speak of a legitimate development of Torah law, sanctioned and mandated by G-d's instructions as to how His will should by applied to our lives. Shammai's disciples understanding of the Torah, even when rejected by the final ruling, is a valid expression of the Divine will; when endorsed by the majority of Torah sages, it becomes the only valid way in which to implement the Divine will in practice. Nevertheless, the triumph of the Shammaian approach to Torah carries the potential for the very same "otherness"--albeit in subtlest of forms--represented by the Golden Calf.



As mentioned above, the school of Hillel tended to a more lenient application of Torah law, while the school of Shammai was characterized by strictness and severity. This was not a matter of a benevolent group of sages on the one hand and a group of harsh, uncompromising jurists on the other, but the product of two different perspectives on the very function of Torah.



Living as a Jew means daily grappling with a basic dissonance in our perception of reality. On the one hand, we affirm that "There is none else beside Him" (Deuteronomy 4:35); on the other hand, we are daily confronted with a world that blatantly exhibits its elseness and besideness.



To address this dissonance, G-d gave us the Torah, which is a set of guidelines on how to impose the Divine will upon the world. By implementing Torah in our lives, we create a world that is not separate from G-d but subservient to Him; a world that does not contradict the exclusivity of the Divine reality, but is the instrument of its realization.



The 613 mitzvot (Divine commandments) of the Torah consist of 365 prohibitions (e.g., not to work on Shabbat, not to eat meat with milk) and 248 positive commandments (to give charity, the put on tefillin). In other words, the Torah has a two-pronged approach to resolving the seeming contradiction between the Divine unity and the worlds perceived separateness: abnegation and cultivation.



In the "abnegation" mode, the negation of a part of the physical universe vanquishes its otherness. For example: the human appetite might desire a non-kosher food; the Torah commands not to eat it; by suppressing his craving for the sake of his commitment to the Divine will, the person demonstrates that his physical desire, and the desired physical object, are devoid of value and significance. They might exist, but they are "nothing" to him. The only "something" is G-d, for He is the only being of any significance.



In the "cultivation" mode of Torah, a part of the world is developed into an instrument of the divine. A piece of leather exists, bearing no manifest relationship with G-d; the piece of leather is fashioned into a pair of tefillin, an object whose obvious function is to fulfill a Divine command. A physical object has transcended its otherness to exhibit its subservience to G-d. It has not been made to nothing; indeed, its "somethingness" has been cultivated and developed. But its somethingness is no longer separate from (and thus opposed to) the Divine being, but is now its extension and expression.



Which of these two modes of Torah's interaction with the world is more primary to its overall function? This is the underlying difference between the two most basic schools of Torah law, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. From the Shammaian perspective, the Torah is basically "negative," its primary function being to expose the nothingness of the physical reality. True, the Torah also includes cultivative elements, but these, too, are a function of its abnegative effect on the world. When the Torah commands to develop a piece of leather into a pair of tefillin, this is just another way of abnegating the physical realityby demonstrating how even the spiritually "useful" elements of the physical world possess no significance of their own, save for their capacity to serve G-d.



Thus, when Torah allows for both a prohibitive and a permissive interpretation of a certain law, the school of Shammai naturally embraces the option that is consistent with its understanding of Torah's overall function: to proscribe and prohibit, thus negating the "somethingness" of the physical reality.



Hillel had a different perspective on Torah. In his view, the Torah comes not to negate the physical reality, but to reveal how its "somethingness" is of a piece with the "somethingness" of G-d. So it is the Torah's "cultivating" mitzvot which express its ultimate function. The Torah, of course, also includes many prohibitions, but these are but the necessary ground rules that allow for the proper cultivation of the world as a vehicle of G-dliness. For the physical world includes certain elements whose Divine potential is beyond our capacity to reveal; unless these are "abnegated," they will interfere with our cultivation of those elements which we are equipped to deal with. But when faced with two possible interpretation of a law in Torah, the Hillelian sage will opt for the permissive rather than the prohibitive, for he is inclined to include as much of the world as possible in the Torah's "cultivative" domain.



Both the Shammaian and Hillelian approach are legitimate perceptions of Torah; both affirm the truth that "There is none else beside Him." But in a very subtle way, the approach of Shammai recognizes an "otherness" to the world that is completely absent from the Hillelian view. In effect, the perspective of Shammai says: The world exists; therefore it must be abnegated. The world challenges the singularity of G-d; therefore it must be disavowed.



From the perspective of Hillel, however, the "existence" of the world is not an adversary to be vanquished, but an enigma to be revealed; not a rebellion against the Divine sovereignty to be put down, but a potential to be realized. The world according to Hillel possesses no "otherness" in the first place; what we perceive as its independence and separateness of being is but the expression of the Divine being that pervades it.



A Mitigating Victory



As long as the Shammaian approach to Torah was subservient to the Hillelian, it posed no threat to the integrity of Israel's relationship with G-d. On the contrary, it complemented it as a parallel vision of the Divine blueprint for life. For man's service of G-d includes both the cultivation of his self and world as a receptacle for G-dliness, as well as the abnegation of self and world before the all-transcending truth of G-d. There are times in a person's life that the first element must take precedence, and times when the second element should be accentuated; times when he must view the world as a Hillelian sage, and times when he must look at it with a Shammaian eye.



But the day that the sages of Shammai outnumbered the sages of Hillel and their vision of Torah became the basis of its actual practice, was "as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the Golden Calf was made." When the abnegative approach of Shammai supplanted the cultivative approach of Hillel in the actual, day-to-day practice of Torah, the danger existed that the Jew might eventually be led to view his world as something "other" than G-d, something alien to the truth of its Creator. In this sense, it was a day rife with a potential threat akin to that posed by the making of the Golden Calf.



But unlike the day on which the Golden Calf was made, which led to the day on which it was actually worshipped, the danger implicit in the brief reign of Shammai had no adverse results. The numerical superiority of the school of Shammai was short-lived; on the following day, the majority reverted to Hillel and his disciples. With the exception of the eighteen laws voted on that day, the actual practice of Torah law follows the Hillelian approach.



In fact, the day of Shammai's victory had a mitigating effect on his severity. For even as his view triumphed over that of Hillel, it was influenced by the very process of debate and defense against the other opinion. In a number of cases, we actually find the disciples of Shammai propagating a more lenient view than Hillels disciples; this was the result of the day on which eighteen laws were decided according to the opinion of Shammai, but not without being influenced by the defeated opinion of Hillel.



Because of this day, even when a person must, by necessity, adapt a "Shammaian" approach, it is mitigated by the vision of Hillel. Even when the circumstances necessitate the subjugation and abnegation of the materiality of his existence, this is accompanied with the recognition that, ultimately, there are no alien or "other" elements in G-d's world, where everything is one with its creator and source.



Tomorrow



Our sages tell us that the words of a tzaddik (perfectly righteous person) are never without result. Even if they are not realized immediately, they ultimately achieve fulfillment.



The same applies, says the great Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria, to Aaron's proclamation, "Tomorrow is a festival unto G-d!" On that first "tomorrow," Aaron's hope was not realized: the 17th of Tammuz became the day on which the Golden Calf was worshipped, the Tablets of the Covenant constituting the "marriage contract" between G-d and Israel were broken, and the very day fated to become the scene of many tragedies in Jewish history -- including breaching of Jerusalem's walls which led to the destruction of the Holy Temple three weeks later on the 9th of Av and the exile of Israel from their land.



But as the prophet (Zechariah 8:19) promises, G-d will transform the 17th of Tammuz into a festival and a day of joy, when the tribulations and sufferings of galut will yield the Divine harmony and perfection of the messianic era. Then, the positive resolution of the making of the Golden Calf anticipated by Aaron will be realized, as the error and regression of Israel's sin will be transformed into a heightened appreciation of the all-pervading reality of G-d.1.



FOOTNOTES

1. Based on Likkutei Sichot, vol. XXIV, pp. 1-11.

the Septuagint

Daily Quote




When a father punishes his child, the suffering he inflicts on himself is greater than anything experienced by the child. So it is with G-d: His pain is greater than our pain.



- Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov



Torah translated into Greek (246 BCE)



In a second attempt to translate the Torah into Greek (after an unsuccessful attempt 61 years earlier), the ruling Greek-Egyptian emperor Ptolemy gathered 72 Torah sages, had them sequestered in 72 separate rooms, and ordered them to each produce a translation. On the 8th of Tevet of the year 3515 from creation (246 BCE) they produced 72 corresponding translations, including identical changes in 13 places (where they each felt that a literal translation would constitute a corruption of the Torah's true meaning). This Greek rendition became known as the Septuagint, "of the seventy" (though later versions that carry this name are not believed to be true to the originals). Greek became a significant second language among Jews as a result of this translation. During Talmudic times, Tevet 8 was observed by some as a fast day, expressing the fear of the detrimental effect of the translation.



Links: The Day Before; Translating Truth; more on translation
Wednesday Tevet 8 5703


Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayigash, Revi'i with Rashi.

Tehillim: 44-48.

Tanya: Ch. 7. On the other (p. 25)...the students thereby. (p. 27).





The Tzemach Tzedek instructed all the tutors of his young grandchildren, that, in addition to regular studies, they should teach the simple meaning of the prayers. Once a month the children came to their grandfather to be tested in this subject.

Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson


Share

PrintE-mail Discuss (0)« Previous

On the Third Day There Was PeaceNext »

Essential Peace There is a recurring theme in the volumes of stories told of the Rebbe: The tale of the man who was in the right place at the right time.



There are the stories of someone embarking on a trip to some distant place, and the Rebbe gave him a book to take along, or asked him to do a certain thing there, or to meet a certain person. Or the Rebbe simply asked someone to go to a place, with little direction of what to do there.



And then, in these stories, it always works out that just at the right time the right person turns up in the right place and all the story unfolds. It's all a matter of making connections: Every soul has certain sparks of light scattered throughout the world that relate to it in particular. The Rebbe sees the soul and senses, like a geiger counter, the sparks that await this soul. All that was needed is to bring the two within a reasonable proximity and the rest takes care of itself.



The stories are meant as a teaching as well. The Rebbe was revealing to us the wonder of our own lives, that there is purpose latent in whatever you are doing.

Prayer - Universal

Prayer - Universal






Chapter 2, Mishna 18(b)



"Rabbi Shimon said: Be careful with the recitation of the Shema and the prayers. When you pray, do not regard your prayers as a fixed obligation but rather as [the asking for] mercy and supplication before G-d, as the verse states, 'For gracious and merciful is He, slow to anger, great in kindness, and relenting of the evil decree' (Joel 2:13). Do not consider yourself wicked in your own eyes."



Last week we discussed the concept of prayer, and in particular how it addresses man's need both for structure and for individuality in his religious expression. This week I'd like to turn to an equally fundamental and quite fascinating aspect of prayer: its application to both Jew and Gentile.



We find firstly prayer to be a universal concept -- one not exclusively the domain of the Jews. In Isaiah G-d promises us that in the End of Days "...My house (the Temple) will be called a house of prayer to all the nations" (56:7). Clearly, prayer is applicable -- and meaningful -- to all of G-d's creations (although various high-ranking members of other religions have been arrogant enough -- and stupid enough -- to claim that G-d does not hear the prayers of the Jews).



We find further that on occasion a Gentile is obligated to pray to G-d. R. Moshe Feinstein was widely regarded as the greatest rabbi in the United States in the decades after the War until his passing in 1986. He wrote in response to a query (Igros Moshe O"C 2:24) that it is his belief that a Gentile is obligated to pray to G-d in his time of need. He explained: From where does such an obligation stem? As we know, there are Seven Noahide Laws -- not to kill, steal, commit adultery, etc.; prayer is not one of them?

To this R. Moshe explained, the first of the Seven Laws is belief in G-d. If one truly believes in G-d (and understands the implications of such a belief), he recognizes G-d to be the only True Cause of all that occurs in this world. G-d both directs our lives and personally concerns Himself with our fates. Anyone who truly believes this will naturally turn to G-d in his or her time of need. Who else is there to turn to? All human and natural remedies are but agents of G-d's will. Although of course we are obligated to avail ourselves of all practical means of helping ourselves, our fate ultimately lies in G-d's hands alone. Man's obligation to pray is thus a corollary of his belief in G-d. Anyone with any real sort of understanding of who G-d is will naturally turn to prayer when he needs a helping Hand.




There is, however, one critical difference between the concept of prayer as it pertains to the Gentile versus the Jew -- and it will open up for us an important window into a much more fundamental distinction. Based on what we wrote above, say a Gentile does not have a time of need (or at least doesn't think he does) -- for days, weeks, months. He does not feel he has anything in particular to say to G-d. Is he obligated to pray? Apparently not. A Gentile certainly *can* pray if he wants. But if he feels no compelling reason or urge to pray, he would be exempt. G-d, to be sure, is receptive to the prayers of Gentiles. He is there for them and is more than ready to hear their pleas and concerns -- if they would only make the effort. But He does not force them.



We, however, are forced.


There is an obligation for every Jew to pray at least once a day. Even if nothing is wrong -- we feel we have nothing in particular to say to G-d (in itself reason to start praying), G-d insists that we stand before Him daily. We have a relationship with G-d; it must be constantly maintained and developed. It is not the "foul weather" one of the Gentile. We relate to G-d in both our bad times and our good. We see all as stemming from G-d, and we so turn to Him at all times -- with our gratitude, our concerns, and our regrets. Further, we have a mission to G-d and to mankind. We must constantly realign ourselves with that mission and orient our lives accordingly.




Thus, our relationship with G-d is ongoing and continual. It is a relationship we may never ignore. We *must* have something to say to our G-d. And if the words fail us, the Sages have provided us with the outline with which to begin. For we must constantly face our G-d, for only through this can we face ourselves and face our destinies.



There is yet another critical difference between the prayer of the Jew and the Gentile -- one which sheds even further light on the different relationships we have with G-d. King Solomon, at the dedication of the First Temple, offered prayers to G-d on behalf of Israel and the Temple (see I Kings, Chapter 8). In Verse 39 he asked that G-d hear the prayers of His nation: "...and You shall give to the man [who prays to you] as all his ways (i.e., all he asks for), for You know his heart..." Solomon continues (41-43): "And also to the Gentile... who hears of Your great name, Your strong hand, and Your outstretched arm, and he comes and prays to this house, shall You listen from the Heavens Your dwelling, and do everything for which he calls to You, so that all the nations of the world will know Your Name..."

The commentators note a discrepancy in King Solomon's language (see Rashi to Genesis 27:28). Regarding Israel, Solomon asked that G-d hear our prayers, but only as He "knows our hearts" -- only if the prayers are sincere and the petitioner deserving. Regarding the nations, however, Solomon asked that G-d does "everything for which he calls to You" -- evidently, whether he deserves it or not. Solomon wanted G-d's Name elevated in the eyes of the Gentiles. Always answer them, he prayed. They should see Divine Providence in action. Let them know You are a G-d who hears -- and responds.




Regarding us there are no such assurances. We are not answered as a matter of course -- or at least the answer might be no. We, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are far stronger in our faith. If G-d seemingly does not respond to our pleas, we will neither reject Him nor fail to recognize Him as the sole Master of the universe. We will see the shortcoming as within ourselves -- that the G-d who hears all prayers expects more from us before He responds -- or knows that what we ask for is not in our best interests. And we will persevere in our faith regardless.



Thus, in a way the nations of the world have it easier. G-d makes fewer demands on them. He is there for them and always responds to them -- at least in periods when His Temple stood. (The Midrash states that if the nations had any idea how much harm they were doing *themselves* by destroying the Temple, they would have encircled it to protect it (Bamidbar Rabbah 1). Today, sadly, the cords which bind the physical and spiritual realms are far more tenuous.)



We, however, have no such assurance. G-d gives to us and provides for us, but He expects in return: it is not for free. The blessings and closeness come with awesome responsibility. Our Father in Heaven does not just give; He warns, rebukes, and withholds as well. Our relationship is thus far more demanding, but potentially, far more rewarding. We might even say that our G-d *does* always answer us as well -- there is no such thing as a prayer ignored -- but that He expects us to be mature enough to understand that the answer might just be no.