For the JuBu's...

[Tumah]

Uposatha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Introductory lines from the wiki article:

The Uposatha (Sanskrit: Upavasatha) is Buddhist day of observance, in existence from the Buddha's time (500 BCE), and still being kept today in Buddhist countries.[1][2] The Buddha taught that the Uposatha day is for "the cleansing of the defiled mind," resulting in inner calm and joy.[3] On this day, lay disciples and monks intensify their practice, deepen their knowledge and express communal commitment through millennia-old acts of lay-monastic reciprocity. On these days, the lay followers make a conscious effort to keep the Five Precepts or (as the tradition suggests) the Eight Precepts. It is a day for practicing the Buddha's teachings and meditation.​

Traditionally occurring on day of new moon, first quarter, full moon, and last quarter--so about once a week.

You couldn't possibly have shown me something that made me laugh more than this did!

 

[Tumah]

I don't venerate any statues or idols. However, I do like contemplating the symbolism of the five dhyani Buddhas, each representing the transformation of a negative emotion into a different wisdom--transforming anger/aggression into clear mirror-like wisdom, transforming pride into the wisdom of equality, transforming desire into the wisdom of discernment, transforming jealousy/envy into all accomplishing wisdom, and transforming ignorance into dharma teaching wisdom. These are just representations of inner transformation that employ a lot of information for the process through some rich symbolism. (At least that is how I use it. As a contemplation tool.)

I am not a Rabbi. But I can say that performing the same actions towards an item that is considered an idol falls under the prohibition of idol-worship, even if your intention is to make fun of it. So if this image is used in some forms of Buddhism as a religious image, then it would be a problem.

It happens to be that Jews used to take trees into their homes on Shavuos (Festival of Weeks). Until Christians started doing that as part of their observance of Christmas. Now we just put some branches on top of the Ark in the Synagogue.

 

[punkdbass]

I have a question. If this is a realization that you need to come to by experiencing it subjectively, how do you know that the next person is experiencing the same idea. For instance, let's say you fully experience your Divine nature and so does Fred. How do you know that the nature of your Divinity is the same as his without an objective point of reference?

I guess this is the solipsist/relativist in me coming out but my answer would be that you can't forsure know that someone else, e.g. Fred, has obtained this realization. You cannot know forsure. The most certainty we can ever attain in life is the certainty of our own experiences, of our own consciousness. So for example, if my own consciousness and introspection tells me that Fred has attained a high level of realization, and that his teachings and presence can be beneficial to my spirituality.. if I truly believe this, how could anyone possibly tell me that I am wrong? And if someone tells me I am wrong, wont I only be wrong if come to realize I am in the wrong? If never believe that I am wrong, how can I be wrong? I am more certain of my inner experiences than anything else in life.. the same goes for you.

The point being here is that realization is ultimately a private, inner experience and not a public, objective experience. If realization is the state of being aware that you are one with the Infinite, how could you possibly ever objectify such an experience? How can you make the Infinite a finite object of experience? If the Infinite were an object of experience, it would literally obliterate all other objects of experience! If the Infinite could become a sensation of the 5 senses.. it would literally obliterate all other senses! How could you sense anything else? The point being is that you cant make the Infinite an object of experience, you can't objectify the Infinite or realization thereof.

I was saying that He can't be bound to anything. In other words, I can't say that G-d Himself is inside me, because G-d is everywhere and He can't be more inside me than inside the rock. There is no more or less in regards to G-d Himself, only in how much He is revealed

This is consistent with my idea of "Incarnation Theology."

So in a way, you are right. The focus in Judaism is generally not towards meditation (not away from it either, but just not towards). But this is not because it doesn't have importance. Rather it is because the most important thing is to first get yourself into a position where you are already receiving the maximum spiritual benefit you can. Creating in yourself the right "shape" vessel to receive the maximum amount of Divine Flow. Once that is accomplished, you can then work on tapping into that Flow. But you need the base first. That is a spiritual reality. The structure that G-d created. Judaism is the framework needed to tap into that structure.

this makes perfect sense to me, thanks for sharing.

In my opinion, that is why you will find elements of Judaism in many Eastern cultures. Because the Spiritual Truths are Universal. Only without a Book to know them all, a human can only figure out so many of them on his own. And so you have the Chakras of Hinduism and the Oneness of everything in Buddhism. The Yin-Yang of Taoism.

I think a truly loving God would not would not give us a "book with all the answers," just as a truly loving father would not leave me 1 billion dollars as a child... God want's us to think for ourselves, to be intellectually free.

 

[Avi1001]

Great OP, Tumah, and lots of terrific posts by the "usual suspects".

I am actually not a "Buddhist-following" Jew, I am a reform Jew who is interested in Buddhist philosophy.

Believe it or not, I agree with you, Tumah. I think Jews need to return to Judaism to re-discover some of the lost wisdom.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with looking at other faith's wisdom literature as well. If I am not mistaken, Maimonides spent a fair effort studying the Greeks.

And, I have read some A. Kaplan, and he is quite brilliant, a physicist, by the way !

You aren't by chance a retired high school teacher, are you, Tumah ?

As I wanted to get a response specifically from Buddhist-following Jews, I thought I should put this here. If I am mistaken please correct me.

My question is, are there any Buddhist-following Jews, that have read the books "Letters to a Buddhist Jew" By David Gottleib and "Jewish Meditation" by Aryeh Kaplan? What were your thoughts on them?

Also, why do you think that so many Jews specifically seem to find Buddhism more fulfilling than their own religion, when it seems as though many of the principles of Buddhism have their parallel in Judaism? If I like ice cream, why would I go to the Baskin Robbins in the next neighborhood when I have one right next door?

 

[Tumah]

I'm sure you can even find strict orthodox Jews who have left the bosom of orthodox Judaism and later went on to explore other philosophies and practices.

Undoubtedly. But I would say something like 98% of them, left because of some bad experiences or they just couldn't be bothered to put effort into themselves.

Well that is what people like me are looking for. My Jewish experience relies on things which are closer to my heart. Military service, justice, spending time in the Israeli outdoors, studying the scriptures without what I consider the bias of oral Judaism and the Talmud which to me are of lesser value in my system of ideals and ethos. Etc. I see my Hebrew existence to derive its inspiration from the legacy of Warrior-Poets and Prophets and much less from the sages of Late Antiquity.

I am understanding from this that you don't believe in G-d and because of that there is nothing that binds you to Judaism more than anything else out there beyond your birth.

In my mind, thinking that you MUST relax on your weekend is not really something which would make me feel comfortable. And certainly keeping in mind that I am forbidden from doing various activities. Not working, yeap that can be great.

What if you were able to see your soul. There is this intensely bright, pure, majestic light emanating from your depths. The beauty of this intense purity is so awesome that it takes complete self-control every moment to hold yourself back from crying in awe. Every moment you wore Tzitzis, the light became even brighter as difficult as that might seem to your opened eyes.

However, every time you turned the light switch on in your house, you saw this light dim.

Would it still make you uncomfortable to be told that you must keep this light bright?

I don't mean this as a debate (*please don't kick me out of the forums, form-master*). I'm only trying to identify where the issue might really be.

There is no doubt that in order to understand Kabbalistic literature one has to have solid knowledge not only of the Talmud and Jewish tradition, but also the Hebrew Bible and the development of mystical Jewish thought in antiquity.

Then how can you expect to really understand what going on there?

I am living in Israel, but who is this dynasty you are referring to?

There are many. You had Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri until just a few years ago. Today there is Rabbi Yaakov Hillel. The heads of Shaarei Shamayim (in order to gain entrace to this school you have to prove proficiency on the "revealed" Torah) Rabbi Gamliel Rabinowitz (happens to be from a family that can trace their lineage to Aaron the Priest) and Rabbi Yaakov Meir Schechter. To name a few.

Ironically many Jews consider the second point to apply to various forms of Judaism just as it applies to eastern religions. For example the average Jewish society in Israel frowns on young Israelis 'conversion' to orthodoxy just as it might frown on their flirtations with eastern practices. Both seem like grazing in foreign pastures.

Quite sad, but I'm aware of the sentiments here. Yet without Orthodox Jews to keep the Torah alive these past 2,000 years, would any of them be living here in Israel?

 

[Tumah]

I guess this is the solipsist/relativist in me coming out but my answer would be that you can't forsure know that someone else, e.g. Fred, has obtained this realization. You cannot know forsure. The most certainty we can ever attain in life is the certainty of our own experiences, of our own consciousness. So for example, if my own consciousness and introspection tells me that Fred has attained a high level of realization, and that his teachings and presence can be beneficial to my spirituality.. if I truly believe this, how could anyone possibly tell me that I am wrong? And if someone tells me I am wrong, wont I only be wrong if come to realize I am in the wrong? If never believe that I am wrong, how can I be wrong? I am more certain of my inner experiences than anything else in life.. the same goes for you.

That is nice on a philosophical level. But let's say there was a concrete difference between the two of you. How would you know? For instance, let's say Fred's soul was blue. For blue souls, wearing squares elevates the blue soul. Your soul is green. For green souls you need to wear triangles. You have no objective standard to determine that Fred's soul is not the same as your soul. So you wear squares too and begin the Blue/square path to elevating the soul. Now 10 years later you have attained some elevation as a matter of course, but no where near the same level had you worn triangles this whole time. Alas, no one could tell you you had a green soul. And you think that your subjective experience of elevation with squares must be the same as Fred's. You'd never know.

The point being here is that realization is ultimately a private, inner experience and not a public, objective experience. If realization is the state of being aware that you are one with the Infinite, how could you possibly ever objectify such an experience? How can you make the Infinite a finite object of experience? If the Infinite were an object of experience, it would literally obliterate all other objects of experience! If the Infinite could become a sensation of the 5 senses.. it would literally obliterate all other senses! How could you sense anything else? The point being is that you cant make the Infinite an object of experience, you can't objectify the Infinite or realization thereof.

Realization is a subjective, private, experience. That is inherently true. But we are talking about experiencing a concrete objective entity. Not an inner Truth. The Infinite nature of the Divine doesn't allow for differences within It.

But I would highly suspect someone who hacks off his arm claiming that through this he experiences the Divine to be to the same degree as an old Sage who has immersed himself in the Spiritual for 40 years. Likewise, there may be other practices that can elevate the consciousness to a place that enables one to experience the Divine to an even greater degree.

Lastly, I don't completely agree with you that one can't experience the Divine. I am my soul and my soul is of the Divine. By removing myself from my physical body and entering the Spiritual realm where spacial and temporal dimensions are relaxed, I am much more freer to experience the Infinite.

I think a truly loving God would not would not give us a "book with all the answers," just as a truly loving father would not leave me 1 billion dollars as a child... God want's us to think for ourselves, to be intellectually free.

I agree almost 100%. G-d does want us to think for ourselves and be intellectually free. However, he wants us to do be so under the best possible circumstances. I have children. I do not tell them to learn that crossing the street is dangerous by getting hit by a car. I teach them about the realities of life, so that they can steer it safely. So I think there is a reality to Spiritual life too and G-d wants us to navigate that safely as well. I don't look at the Commandments as arbitrary Laws, but as reflections of Spiritual realities. Each commandment has a specific purpose that works to my benefit as I've tried to illustrate with my tefillin example.

This is similar to how I would tell my 3 year old never to go into the street because its dangerous. But the concept of the possibility of being hit by a car is not understandable to the 3 year old mind. So instead I just put my rule in place and when she is older I explain it to her. But I don't let her play in the street until she is old enough to understand why its dangerous!!!

 

[Tumah]

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with looking at other faith's wisdom literature as well. If I am not mistaken, Maimonides spent a fair effort studying the Greeks.

Thanks for your response.
Greek is actually not a faith, he studied their science. And according to some of his contemporaries, that worked to his detriment.
There also may be some Halachic considerations to studying other faith's literature not for the purpose of being able to defend one's own faith.

And, I have read some A. Kaplan, and he is quite brilliant, a physicist, by the way !

Yup! The youngest government-employed physicist of his time!

You aren't by chance a retired high school teacher, are you, Tumah ?

Not even close. I'm only 30 years old.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just as a remark, this really seems to have a whole lot more to do with Judaism and the Jewish People than with Buddhism. I must agree with Crossfire about this being the wrong place for this thread.

 

[Tumah]

Just as a remark, this really seems to have a whole lot more to do with Judaism and the Jewish People than with Buddhism. I must agree with Crossfire about this being the wrong place for this thread.

I wasn't sure that I would be as likely to catch a Buddhist Jew there as I am here. Just as a question of which forum a person might more readily identify with and by extension be found. But if you think so, then is there a way to move this thread?

 

[Avi1001]

Luis, you are welcome to move the thread if you would like to. But I think you might be missing an important element that Tumah understood intuitively when he put the OP here.

There is a new generation of Jews that is looking for more than Judaism alone offers. All of the Jewish posters here, punkdbass, Metis and I are interested in exploring that element. But we are not always sure where to begin the discussion. Is it philosophy, religion, meditative practice, all the above, others ? We may not be sure. Can Judaism offer some, most or all of those elements ? Again, we are not sure.

Thanks for listening to our thoughts, though.

Just as a remark, this really seems to have a whole lot more to do with Judaism and the Jewish People than with Buddhism. I must agree with Crossfire about this being the wrong place for this thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wasn't sure that I would be as likely to catch a Buddhist Jew there as I am here. Just as a question of which forum a person might more readily identify with and by extension be found. But if you think so, then is there a way to move this thread?

It is definitely possible to move the thread, and I invite you to create a thread in the Site Feedback area (which will be private, visible only to you and the Forum staff) to discuss the matter of whether it should and where to.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, you are welcome to move the thread if you would like to. But I think you might be missing an important element that Tumah understood intuitively when he put the OP here.

There is a new generation of Jews that is looking for more than Judaism alone offers. All of the Jewish posters here, punkdbass, Metis and I are interested in exploring that element. But we are not always sure where to begin the discussion. Is it philosophy, religion, meditative practice, all the above, others ? We may not be sure. Can Judaism offer some, most or all of those elements ? Again, we are not sure.

Thanks for listening to our thoughts, though.

It is all too possible that I am missing several important elements. I would bet on it, even.

All the same, I still do not particularly feel that this DIR is the right place to discuss the matter. I may be convinced otherwise, of course. It just did not happen yet.

 

[Poeticus]

Krishna, as an ego - a finite "idea", is by no means God. Jesus, as an ego - a finite "idea," is by no mean God. God is not an idea. But Krishna's true identity - his true essence - not the "idea" he has of himself (his ego), but his real, true essence is one with God. As Alan Watts (who is not Christian) brilliantly puts it: the "good news" of the Christian Bible is that Jesus is not the ONLY "son of God" (literally, "of the nature of God"), but the "good news" is that we are ALL sons of God i.e. we are all of divine nature in essence. The key difference, however, is that Jesus, or Krishna, fully realized this truth - while most of us do not yet realize it.

I have never ever encountered anything about Krishna being below God...in fact, in the Bhagavad Gita...Krishna IS God...

The above sounds like a Western dilution of Vedanta with a hint of New Age mysticism. If you told many authentic Vaishnava-s that Krishna is a "son of God"...it would come off as very insulting and some would even say it would be an aparādha (a violation of Dharma Samskār [religious conduct]). Ratikala would have gone ape**** if you mentioned this in the HinduDIR . Heck, the Hare Krishnas would have hounded you with long posts on how everything in the quoted portion above is wrong. You're lucky you didn't derive the attention of their ire. Lucky, you.

*I'm not Vaishnava, BTW.

 

[Avi1001]

Ok, Luis, no worries. I have an idea that might get us out of this quandary.

The idea relates to the interaction between JuBu concepts and Renewal Judaism. I posted to the Site Feedback thread.

CF- maybe we should make you an honorary JuBu, then you could vote too .

It is all too possible that I am missing several important elements. I would bet on it, even.

All the same, I still do not particularly feel that this DIR is the right place to discuss the matter. I may be convinced otherwise, of course. It just did not happen yet.

 

[punkdbass]

I have never ever encountered anything about Krishna being below God...in fact, in the Bhagavad Gita...Krishna IS God...

The above sounds like a Western dilution of Vedanta with a hint of New Age mysticism. If you told many authentic Vaishnava-s that Krishna is a "son of God"...it would come off as very insulting and some would even say it would be an aparādha (a violation of Dharma Samskār [religious conduct]). Ratikala would have gone ape**** if you mentioned this in the HinduDIR . Heck, the Hare Krishnas would have hounded you with long posts on how everything in the quoted portion above is wrong. You're lucky you didn't derive the attention of their ire. Lucky, you.

*I'm not Vaishnava, BTW.

When did I say Krishna was below God? I said Krishna's true identity was one with God.. This is another way of saying Krishna is God, but I did not want to come right out and say that, because I'm trying to help my fellow Jew understand where I'm coming from.. and telling him straight up that I think Jesus and Krishna are God would very much confuse him (such language is super heretical to Judaism lol).. also the idea that Jesus, Krishna, and every single one of thus for that matter is essentially God Himself (the key difference is Jesus and Krishna fully realized this while most of us do not) is something I find very appealing intellectually but it it is not a strong conviction for me, which is another reason why I was more indirect in explaining such a thing. Sorry if you feel insulted but you are deeply misunderstanding me. Not that it matters.. the OP asked what I believe as a Jew interested in Buddhism and Hinduism and I told him what I believe. I am not Hindu, but I believe what I believe, and you are completely free to disagree with my beliefs but this is a DIR so we can't debate here.

Also, my beliefs are not set in stone, I am still very much a seeker as you can easily see from my posts.. I'm extremely interested in Hinduism so if you feel the need to educate me on how these beliefs are wrong to a Hindu, feel free to shoot me a PM for I'd love to continue this discussion in a more appropriate setting.

 

[Poeticus]

When did I say Krishna was below God? I said Krishna's true identity was one with God.. This is another way of saying Krishna is God, but I did not want to come right out and say that, because I'm trying to help my fellow Jew understand where I'm coming from.. and telling him straight up that I think Jesus and Krishna are God would very much confuse him (such language is super heretical to Judaism lol).. also the idea that Jesus, Krishna, and every single one of thus for that matter is essentially God Himself (the key difference is Jesus and Krishna fully realized this while most of us do not) is something I find very appealing intellectually but it it is not a strong conviction for me, which is another reason why I was more indirect in explaining such a thing. Sorry if you feel insulted but you are deeply misunderstanding me. Not that it matters.. the OP asked what I believe as a Jew interested in Buddhism and Hinduism and I told him what I believe. I am not Hindu, but I believe what I believe, and you are completely free to disagree with my beliefs but this is a DIR so we can't debate here.

Also, my beliefs are not set in stone, I am still very much a seeker as you can easily see from my posts.. I'm extremely interested in Hinduism so if you feel the need to educate me on how these beliefs are wrong to a Hindu, feel free to shoot me a PM for I'd love to continue this discussion in a more appropriate setting.

As I have mentioned in a previous post in one of your threads, you have every right to believe or read in whatever you want to believe in or read (regarding various scriptures and commentaries in that one thread). That is your inalienable right.

However, I wasn't debating with you when I said that almost all Vaishnava-s would disagree with Krishna being the "son of God". On the other hand, I would welcome you full heartedly to make a thread about Krishna in the HinduDIR in order to get the various viewpoints of many Hindu traditions (since the majority of Hindus do not believe in "every single one of thus for that matter is essentially God Himself"). You will also be offered detailed sectarian and scriptural viewpoints and conclusions on how Krishna cannot be or should not be equated with Jesus and how such a comparison is troublesome when it comes to non-syncretic, but authentic "Hinduism-s" (i.e., the various Hindu traditions since Hinduism is not monolithic).

BTW, I did not feel insulted. I mentioned that I am not a Vaishnava. In fact, I was stating how lucky you were that no staunch Vaishnava offered his/her theological critique nor noticed your post. Very lucky, IMHO.

 

[punkdbass]

As I have mentioned in a previous post in one of your threads, you have every right to believe or read in whatever you want to believe in or read (regarding various scriptures and commentaries in that one thread). That is your inalienable right.

However, I wasn't debating with you when I said that almost all Vaishnava-s would disagree with Krishna being the "son of God". On the other hand, I would welcome you full heartedly to make a thread about Krishna in the HinduDIR in order to get the various viewpoints of many Hindu traditions (since the majority of Hindus do not believe in "every single one of thus for that matter is essentially God Himself"). You will also be offered detailed sectarian and scriptural viewpoints and conclusions on how Krishna cannot be or should not be equated with Jesus and how such a comparison is troublesome when it comes to non-syncretic, but authentic "Hinduism-s" (i.e., the various Hindu traditions since Hinduism is not monolithic).

BTW, I did not feel insulted. I mentioned that I am not a Vaishnava. In fact, I was stating how lucky you were that no staunch Vaishnava offered his/her theological critique nor noticed your post. Very lucky, IMHO.

Interesting, I will most likely make such a thread in the Hinduism thread in the near future. Like I said, I'm still seeking.. especially in Eastern philosophy like Hinduism and Buddhism, and I have much yet to learn. My current plan is to read a $3 "All about Hinduism" book I ordered from Amazon and eventually Yogananda's Bhagavad Gita with commentary.. as well as a few online Hinduism resources I'm using to learn more about the Vedanta Darshana scriptures and perhaps eventually the Upanishads. Hopefully all of these things will help enlighten me on Hinduism and I'm sure I will ask many questions in the Hindu DIR. Also, lately I've been reading a few chapters of the sacred Buddhist text called the "Dhammapada" each day... I'm very much enjoying it so far.

Glad you are not insulted by my beliefs I definitely am curious to hear why Hindus believe Krishna is essentially "above" Jesus and how the "hierarchy of Avatars" works.. and what exactly is the difference between Krishna and someone like you or me.. I will probably make a thread soon after I get a better background knowledge of Hinduism.

 

[Poeticus]

Yes, Dhammapada is a very wonderful Buddhist text. And, I look forward to your future thread. Take your time. Blessed be.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

This is another way of saying Krishna is God, but I did not want to come right out and say that, because I'm trying to help my fellow Jew understand where I'm coming from.. and telling him straight up that I think Jesus and Krishna are God would very much confuse him (such language is super heretical to Judaism lol).

I'm sorry to break this to you, but from a vaiShNava perspective, comparing an avaidika (non-Hindu) deity like hashem to an avatAra or vyUha (let alone a pUrNAvatAra) of shrIman nArAyaNa is indeed a severe aparAdha (as MV said) and is a sign of an atimUDha. shrIkR^iShNa's sharIra is made of shuddha-tattva, not of the panchamahAbhUtAni, so to say that he is merely one with brahman (which is merely aspect of shrIkR^iShNa) in order to please Jews, who worship a non-Hindu deity, makes NO sense from a vaiShNava perspective. shrIkR^iShNa/shrIviShNu takes the shankha-chakra-gadA dhArI (or in the case of shrIkR^iShNa, the muralidhara) rUpam in order to please the devotee; however, that does not diminish his importance or his majesty, he is STILL svayambhagavAn. Just as he does not choose to exist on your terms, he does not become diminished on your terms. Even shiva, the paramadevatA, derives his power from kR^iShNa (from a vaiShNava standpoint), so how can a mere jIva decrease his importance? Still, I agree that this isn't a vaiShNava thread (so my comments may have been misplaced), but I'd like to clarify your view is not vedAntic either. I'm sure bAdarAyaNa would never agree with this sort of radical-universalism; in fact, your comments are vaguely aurobindo/vivekAnanda-esque. I'm sorry if my statement seems harsh, I'm just upset that heretical views (like jesus being a yogI or shrIkR^iShNa being inferior to "hashem") continually get passed off as Hindu views, when they are at best "neo-Hindu." I understand that "Hinduism" is diverse and that different darshana-s and sampradAya-s differ greatly in some matters, but that does not give one the excuse to espouse whatever view they like without proper shAstra-pramANa or base their views entirely off misconceptions. I'm offended by the view of ahmadiyya muslims that kR^iShNa is a "prophet" of their god (allah), but at least they don't claim that their view is in accordance with "Hinduism."

Anyway, I think I should share the following verse about shrIkR^iShNa from the madhurAShTakam of vallabhAchArya:

वेणुर् मधुरो रेणुर् मधुरः
पाणिर् मधुरः पादौ मधुरौ।
नृत्यं मधुरं सख्यं मधुरं
मधुराधिपतेर् अखिलं मधुरं॥३॥

Transliteration:
veNur madhuro reNur madhuraH
pANir madhuraH pAdau madhurau|
nR^ityaM madhuraM sakhyaM madhuraM
madhurAdhipater akhilaM madhuraM|| 3 ||

Translation:
"His flute is sweet; his foot-dust is sweet;
his lotus hands are sweet; his feet are sweet;
his dancing is sweet; his friendship is sweet;
everything is completely sweet about the lord of sweetness"

 

[Caladan]

Undoubtedly. But I would say something like 98% of them, left because of some bad experiences or they just couldn't be bothered to put effort into themselves.

They certainly didn't stay because they found full fulfillment, and many certainly left because they suffered. As for not putting effort into themselves, that is highly subjective. I've heard plenty of stories of people who wanted to keep believing but circumstances provoked disillusionment.

I am understanding from this that you don't believe in G-d and because of that there is nothing that binds you to Judaism more than anything else out there beyond your birth.

Should I conclude from the above that the Prophetic writings, Hebrew legacy of old, and the Land of Israel are distant from God and our lineage, and that Talmudic Judaism supersedes Biblical Judaism?

What if you were able to see your soul. There is this intensely bright, pure, majestic light emanating from your depths. The beauty of this intense purity is so awesome that it takes complete self-control every moment to hold yourself back from crying in awe. Every moment you wore Tzitzis, the light became even brighter as difficult as that might seem to your opened eyes.

Well I would tell you that it's quite anthropological to consume Psilocybin mushrooms before ritual, but it's also a bit like cheating.

Then how can you expect to really understand what going on there?

Which point? If we are to go into white light again then these certainly are not the points I'm looking for when reading the literature of the Zohar for example. But to answer your question, I have a solid enough reading background and understanding of Jewish tradition to keep my neck above the water and survive the reading of Medieval Kabbalistic literature, and earlier Hekhalot literature.

There are many. You had Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri until just a few years ago.

Thanks, but no thanks. No offence meant he just never inspired me morally or spiritually.

Today there is Rabbi Yaakov Hillel. The heads of Shaarei Shamayim (in order to gain entrace to this school you have to prove proficiency on the "revealed" Torah) Rabbi Gamliel Rabinowitz (happens to be from a family that can trace their lineage to Aaron the Priest) and Rabbi Yaakov Meir Schechter. To name a few.

Tracing their lineage to a person we cannot even trace in historical records? Is this like the way the British monarchy is carrying the Davidic lineage? That to me, is charlatanism.
Teachers who need to reaffirm their reputation by appropriating the legacy and heritage of past are weak in their understanding of the world. In my personal experience of course. Aragorn certainly never made a big fuss that he was Isildur's heir. And although fictional, the narratives illustrate what a true man of character is. And what true humility is.

Quite sad, but I'm aware of the sentiments here. Yet without Orthodox Jews to keep the Torah alive these past 2,000 years, would any of them be living here in Israel?

The 'orthodox' Jews of yesterday are not those of today. There was never such division between labor and study as in the present age. Jews in past centuries plowed the field during the day and studied the Torah at night. Many still do just that, they just don't call themselves 'orthodox' (although of course some do).
Or in the words of Maimonides: "Anyone who decides to study Torah and not work, making his living from charity, desecrates Hashem's name , disgraces the Torah ...and any Torah that is not accompanied by work will lead to it's own undoing and cause sin."