Search your favorite song for free

1. Sylvia Pankhurst: Everything is Possible

  • Published: 2018-02-04T21:38:45+00:00
  • Duration: 5421
  • By worldwrite
Sylvia Pankhurst: Everything is Possible

In feature length essay form, the documentary chronicles the inspiring life of lesser known heroine, suffragette and revolutionary Sylvia Pankhurst. Packed with facts from primary sources, rare images from museums and archives, interviews with historians and compelling testimony from Sylvia's son Richard Pankhurst before he sadly passed away, the impact of an extraordinary woman unfolds. Sylvia Pankhurst was imprisoned more than any other suffragette in the UK for her tireless campaigning for votes for women and unlike her more famous mother Emmeline and sister Christabel, who dropped the fight for votes for women to support the First World War effort, Sylvia refused to sacrifice the fight for universal suffrage until it was won. Her opposition to the war and her internationalism were and remain exemplary and her bravery in fighting for equality and opposing all misanthropic trends puts her, as one interviewee suggests, 'up there with the angels.' Helen Pankhurst, Sylvia Pankhurst's granddaughter said: "Brilliant film - I've read and seen a lot about Sylvia - this ranks way up there! Many thanks for bringing my grandmother to life in this way - focussing on the important issues and not on the trivia!" Reviewing the film, Tim Black from spiked commented: “This splendidly edifying stuff. An impressive amount of research, evident in the commentary, is spliced with fascinating interviews. But what really lends the piece its force is the extent to which it offers up striking contrasts with the present. Sylvia’s life story transcends its status as biography and becomes something universal, too.”


2. OCEANIA: Encounters at the Edge (work-in-progress preview)

OCEANIA: Encounters at the Edge (work-in-progress preview)

OCEANIA spans opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean in search of what ties our seemingly fragmented histories, disparate experiences and fates—together. Oceania takes us from the North Pacific Coast–at the site of a former military bunker and geological fault line (and location where filmmakers are based)–to the Earth's center, where the Equator and International Dateline intersect. In this part of the South Pacific, we visit a group of coral atolls known as the Republic of Kiribati. Climate scientists predict that these low-lying islands will be uninhabitable by 2030, due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. In a traditional village, north of the capital city, we are introduced to our main character. Tekinati is of I-Kiribati descent, a mother of 4, whose ancestry on these islands dates back 3000 years. As the film reveals, she is a strong, soulful woman who has the power of song and a steadfast and willful character—a connecting force and important voice within her traditional, yet ever-changing community. Her youngest son, Etekias, is now 13 and faced with a choice to continue his life of fishing, or to follow in the footsteps of his older siblings, and leave the islands to make a living abroad. We travel with Tekinati to visit her older sister, Ruku, who has recently returned to their childhood home located on an outer island. Here the sisters reconnect after many years spent living apart. We learn survival lessons the father taught the girls before he died; Ruku uses the sky to find her bearings and Tekinati shares how she is able to survive a dynamic and unpredictable sea–each knows these stories contains larger lessons for life. As we return to the North, we are aware of our techno-industrial frame and the "ecological rift" that characterizes our own cultural context. This rift is mirrored in the geological landscape. Here is a place where the North American Continental Shelf plunges in depth and darkness; where radioactive waste was dumped for over 30 years, forever submerged on the sea floor. It is on this edge, as waste from Fukushima washes ashore, we can choose to reawaken our connection to that which sustains us.


3. Lucas Thanos ~ Departure

  • Published: 2015-08-27T15:22:52+00:00
  • Duration: 282
  • By Lucas Thanos
Lucas Thanos ~ Departure

music by Lucas Thanos photographs and images of the planet Mars Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun and the second smallest planet in the Solar System, after Mercury. Named after the Roman god of war, it is often referred to as the "Red Planet" because the iron oxide prevalent on its surface gives it a reddish appearance. Mars is a terrestrial planet with a thin atmosphere, having surface features reminiscent both of the impact craters of the Moon and the volcanoes, valleys, deserts, and polar ice caps of Earth. The rotational period and seasonal cycles of Mars are likewise similar to those of Earth, as is the tilt that produces the seasons. Mars is the site of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and second-highest known mountain in the Solar System, and of Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System. The smooth Borealis basin in the northern hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature. Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos, which are small and irregularly shaped. These may be captured asteroids, similar to 5261 Eureka, a Mars trojan. Until the first successful Mars flyby in 1965 by Mariner 4, many speculated about the presence of liquid water on the planet's surface. This was based on observed periodic variations in light and dark patches, particularly in the polar latitudes, which appeared to be seas and continents; long, dark striations were interpreted by some as irrigation channels for liquid water. These straight line features were later explained as optical illusions, though geological evidence gathered by unmanned missions suggests that Mars once had large-scale water coverage on its surface at some earlier stage of its life. In 2005, radar data revealed the presence of large quantities of water ice at the poles and at mid-latitudes. The Mars rover Spirit sampled chemical compounds containing water molecules in March 2007. The Phoenix lander directly sampled water ice in shallow Martian soil on July 31, 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars In ancient Roman religion and myth, Mars (Latin: Mārs, [maːrs]) was the god of war and also an agricultural guardian, a combination characteristic of early Rome.[1] He was second in importance only to Jupiter and he was the most prominent of the military gods in the religion of the Roman army. Most of his festivals were held in March, the month named for him (Latin Martius), and in October, which began the season for military campaigning and ended the season for farming. Under the influence of Greek culture, Mars was identified with the Greek god Ares, whose myths were reinterpreted in Roman literature and art under the name of Mars. But the character and dignity of Mars differed in fundamental ways from that of his Greek counterpart, who is often treated with contempt and revulsion in Greek literature. Mars was a part of the Archaic Triad along with Jupiter and Quirinus, the latter of whom as a guardian of the Roman people had no Greek equivalent. Mars' altar in the Campus Martius, the area of Rome that took its name from him, was supposed to have been dedicated by Numa, the peace-loving semi-legendary second king of Rome. Although the center of Mars' worship was originally located outside the sacred boundary of Rome (pomerium), Augustus made the god a renewed focus of Roman religion by establishing the Temple of Mars Ultor in his new forum. Although Ares was viewed primarily as a destructive and destabilizing force, Mars represented military power as a way to secure peace, and was a father (pater) of the Roman people. In the mythic genealogy and founding myths of Rome, Mars was the father of Romulus and Remus with Rhea Silvia. His love affair with Venus symbolically reconciled the two different traditions of Rome's founding; Venus was the divine mother of the hero Aeneas, celebrated as the Trojan refugee who "founded" Rome several generations before Romulus laid out the city walls. The importance of Mars in establishing religious and cultural identity within the Roman Empire is indicated by the vast number of inscriptions identifying him with a local deity, particularly in the Western provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_%28mythology%29 Ares /ˈɛəriːz/ (Ancient Greek: Ἄρης [árɛːs], literally meaning "battle") is the Greek god of war. He is one of the Twelve Olympians, and the son of Zeus and Hera. In Greek literature, he often represents the physical or violent and untamed aspect of war, in contrast to his sister the armored Athena, whose functions as a goddess of intelligence include military strategy and generalship. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares)


4. Day of All True Things (English) part I

  • Published: 2012-06-20T03:08:17+00:00
  • Duration: 10801
  • By Tongil
Day of All True Things (English) part I

**** Video sometimes freezes but the audio is fine Celebrations for the 50th Day of All True Things and 58th Anniversary of the Founding of HSA-UWC (Very Unofficial Typed Notes Of Live Broadcast by Air. Culvy) 50 th Day of All Things & 8th Holy Spirit Association Anniversary Begins: 'The Escape of Glory' A Song offered to TPs TYVM HD of Father's Speech (Dr. Seuk) Selected a portin of many speeches in the past and Mr .Peter Kim will read ... As you all know today is the 50th Anniv of DAThings also th HSA 58th Anniv & cele these 2 historical Events today ... 2 speeches relating to these two events. Even tho MC said from past Dof All Things , TF gave direction to educ ev by the Speeches F read this morning .. 50th Anniv 1963 1st time this speech was held 'Let us Inherit the Historical Heart of God' Father before crea the univ he had an Ideal ShimJung & in order to realize it acted upon it .. new heaven and earth upon this land ... on that foundation F erected & started His Blessing from there ... which included Fs Entire SJ and realized it would have been the world of full rea of SJ ... F wanted to crea His base /found of Family which is basis for human welfare ... but because of fall , our painful days started and have lost value ... God & all things waiting for the day this world was to be reclaimed by God ... Throughout this day of restoration G has been living ... G is infinite Love & never gave up on lost children... So the sorrowfull history have been ended and death is ripening and sinful line is now crossing & God is going through this day tested by the enemy satan and G has been protecting humanity and walking Path of Tears, Responsibility & went thru that Path & pioneered that path of death We need never forget sorrowful history & path G had to take ... No matter how hard our own lives, we need to not say such things when faced with the sorry and pain of G ... Nothing can compare to losing Gs children, humanity ... & nothing can compare to losing Parents & historical pain of all history ... pain of G ... and G has been searching for what is Rightfully Gs ... and ev we have is purchased by Gs Blood, Tears & Sweat ... If we forget we will be inundated by this fallen world ... When we look left & right we have our parents, chil & siblings ... we need to walk this path together... do our resp in reclaiming & restoring them & walking a very painful path as well... when we walk it we need not just swallow the pain but have a mindset in order to liberate G from His Pain ... only then we will be able to 'stand' in Heaven ... Today is a Day of Tears and our Position is one of Pain & Tears ... Peop may think that having physical things are a Blessing but true Blessing is in the Position of Gs Love & we need to try to cherish & protect it so that we may then inherit Gs Sorrowful Heart of God ... That is our position ... Now all things are created by HF and we need commit ourselves to reclaiming them ... remember our postion & the purpose of HeAVEN's Prov & we must reclaim the Ideal World before the fall. that G wanted to last for eternity .. Thru the TF ..made by such peop HF will have Dominion over all things that G crea ... We need learn to help TPs and become one in unity to lib G from His Sorrowful Heart ... Only then will our G be able to sit on the Thrown of Sovereignty in The Heaven He Created. In this H we will return all things in the univ that are under dominion of HF ... Today is the day we realize such resp ... We have this Heav to restore. We must restore & return it to HF so that One Nation Under God will be realized ... We need to set that found in an conditional form to crea & est this DofAThings ... & then that nation will finally become one nation under God. God crea all things with human beings as the owner to fulfill His Ideal thru human beings but the fall & painful history started ... Then G could not have his own nation & land; and, G has been finding His peop for the Foundation to set His Original Homeland. What have we been proclaiming to the world? Blessing ... What is sin ? Embezzling public property/funds. We need such strictness not to misuse public things. When all thing have infinite value, & we human beings use that for infinite things to flourish, this foundation can advance from fam, nation world & universe . Today we need set the standard of treating our neighbors & friends fr the Position of G with the H of G. Since th SJ of G is public, if you invade or misuse the SJ of G it will invade & repeat the fall of ancestors ... You are position to embody such SH of G & treat all things in the universe with the SJ of G. From this day please truly realize the sorrowfull Heart of G and what things Gs Heart Wants ... Upon this foundation all things in the universe will be restored to G ... From the position of G we must Bless all things & inherit them. We need to settle as the true sons & daughters of HF ... We need to set this foundation in one generation ... If you fail to do so, your ancestors in sw will not be able to hold their heads up for shame ... As this promise has already been made to TF, we must carry it out with all our hearts.. Then, all things in the univ will be Blessed. So we must pledge again and TF makes the Benediction and we need realize this. TF also bestowed us with this special poem that He had written ... Lyrics of a Song .. Father read this alone but we together Let us praise thei deal of HF crea & reset the glorious found & holy H & E start from that Found and see the sons & daughter & see the family , G crea the univ however human beings fell & now that the humanity fell the history of Gs Sorrowful Heart started and the 6,000 yrs of hist to reclaim that Son , G shed so many Tears to Restore the Glorious Ideal World with sons & daugh as true owners of all things ... Let us return Joy to HF Who allowed us to become owners again & return Joy to TPs Please accept this Heaven & children & all things of Goodness ... 1963 F wrote that Song apprause The Assoc was est 59 yrs ago, however, during this yrs ev anniv there is one speech we've been reading; but 8 yrs ago on this day TF commemorated the 50th God's Homeland And The Kingdom of Peace Is on the Found of Lib & Released ... and F proclaimed new direction of our Prov. Respected Guests L&G 50 yrs ago today we est the HSA of WC but today from 190 nations & we have been rapidly dev only in 50 yrs which is Gs miracle however in the past few yrs I've been teaching Heaven & with the heart of summarizing such teachings , this speech .. Emphasizing throughout my life, we must know th existence of G & sw through our heart, not brain. Please put your hand on your chest & think Do you really know G exists & if really so, what prob in the world cannot be solved ... I proclaim to you with finality that G exists & is the Parent. All have minds, but who knows where this energy is, like Gs Energy , Abs Unch Eternal but we cannot see Him even in the sw ... As He exists in real form, G has no obstace in going thru this universe & when He penetrates your body, you would not feel it even stepping on your head & G could look through your life through your eyes to live your life ... Even today you cannot see the air going in & out of your body. How can we see G working thru us .. Some make some stupid claim to see Him then believer. Have you seen life, lineage, conscience. We know their existence by our hearts .. We cannot say that we cannot see or feel G ... When G comes into our mind , we feel and know that phenomenon. We cannot measure eternity with our comfortable time, yet it exists ... shrouded with mysteries & a vast space. The time it takes for light to travel in one light yar... It takes 2 hundred million yers. to reach the end of the universe ... G is not bound by the concept of time & space , so He can be there in an instant . As our mind is the place where Gs Heart resides, with that kind of Heart we can have a world of happiness ... If the world did not fall the world would accept living a life with humanity serving G. However, humanity is woeful by the fall and does not know the existence of G. If A & E Who resembled G did not fall, then thru them all humanity would have know G and the question of His existence would not have come up .. G would have been the Center of our lives. We must know Gs Existence through embodying G in our heart & know in ev instance were we must go and what we must do ... living a life without sin and perfecting ourselves. Then knowing Gs existence is the most imp thing in our lives. First we are created in the womb of our mothers. In the womb can we say that our life is this or that. Baby cannot imagine life outside of the womb , but all are born and come into this life. In this 10 mths as a fetus move to be 100 yrs in phys w, then to the sp w which last an eternity. This s ww cannot be imagined by humanity in the phys w. When we are fetus we accept nutrition & energy from our Mother, but in the s w , we only need the Love of G for our existence. Thru this we live. This is not the kind of life we choose, but the Blessing G has poured on humanity. When we say we must know the sw , we must inherit it & know this phys world as a preparation for it. If we sin in our phys life without knowing the Heart of G, we'll have to indemnity all the sin we've caused in the phys life. Those sins do not disappear but saved in a super computer called our spirits, evaluating what kind of phys life we lived. We need ask ourselves in our phys life if we are going in the right direction. All the saints left this world leaving historical guidance of their teachings, they still did not teach us completely. Where I go before the audiences I ask 'Please raise your hand if your body & mind is not intrinsic' Our humanity are still fighting amongst themselves. HBs keep living such life which is in conflict. Now RM TP of HKind have brought the teachings of Heaven & the number of peop who say they must follow the teaching of RM is increasing & He is being served as TPs of H ... These messages are being given to the sw as well & receiving the benefit & will all follow RM ... The Day will come soon & all will gather like clouds to learn this way of life to become TPs Family & Lineage. Al l the Kings proclaimed their belief in TPs and asked forgiveness from TPs. Peop who doubt the existence of G, doubt it ; but I dare them to die and go to the sw & see for themselves if these things are true of false. We must realize that 10, 000 thousand of eyes are watching us to see what kind of life we are living . When we follow the law of the universe, our life is like dropping on the highway. The driver can reach the destination if he does not break any law which is like us ... We can go very fast if don't break a law ... God has not hidden these theachings but has put it in our conscience ... to know what is right even before anything else ... Do you know how much advice your conscience has been giving witout it getting tired, it continues; but, you have been betraying your conscience's guide. Peop follow this physical body which has been ignoring the Voice of Conscience. RM teaches to take control of your own life before your take control of the whole universe. Only when we live for the sake of others, our mind & body can truly unite, & when we try to do something, our conscience will give solution. Such people will unite with G & create the world of the Ideal of Creation. More than 80 years I've been walking this path, & teaching the Ideal to Humanity. If in Gs Heart there was no Heart of TL & Sacrifice all would not have been possible in restoration. Such has been Gs sorrowful Heart. Even though, peop say that even if G is alive, G is dead ; and, all of humanity has waited for the day that they realize the Heart of G. Even though G is capable of erasing ev & starting over, because of Gs H He endured sufferings & humiliation in order to start true Ideal Crea. We need not close our eyes to Gs Sorrowful Heart . TPs. had to send their four Children to the sw; and, that has been TP Life Course .. in the Position of Saviours to liberate G first and then human beings. More than 80 yrs, they have walked this Path of Prov. Even when F was tortured, He did not pray to be saved but to give ev over to Heaven. That has been the Painful & Lonely Life Course of TPs. However, many hardships & difficulties that all the world could throw at TPs could not stop Them. --all hardships & tribulations possible could not stop Them. When I was in the incarceration I saw at the water drop on the ceiling with the thought that some day it would make a hole in the stonoe floor ... I prayed that God would wash off the world with My Tears ... and all the Blood Sweat & Tears are now bearing fruit.. This is the Day that has been prophesized by many prophets in the past. (applause) Peop are following TPs , The King of all Kings, to become part of creating this Ideal World. Not only in the Korean Peninsual, peop all of the world realizing that without the Teachings of RM the peaceful world cannot be realized. Now, on this Day , we have finished all the foundations needed for G to reign Directly over this world. Today is a special day, The 50 th ... Even, this is a short speech, first , learn the exist of G w your flesh & blood & know the phys world as a prep for the sw. Please live Guided by your Conscience; and, if you do, you will become the peop of the Ideal world. As our number of BCF increase, our ideal world will expand more & more. So, please join this force to create the Ideal World & become the peop who will revolutionize this world to Gs Original Ideal. Following now is Fs Prayer : Let us close our eyes & pray along 1963 Prayer: As we are faced with this glorious Blessing we realize that all these are gifts from you HF ... Please accept our hearts as we sincerely try to know Your Pain & Sorrow; and, as we have received our spouse & children thru Your Blessing, please accept all of them. We have been following Your Course in order to restore your peop your land & Sovereignty & in following this direction, even tho we fall short we have been trying very hard to follow Your Direction. Even we have a lot of time before the actual realization, one Day it will be realize. As we will be standing firmly on this foundation, please accept our efforts. As we are trying to return all the foundation, even we are weak & limited , please let this not be what satan can invade : and please may we not make the mistakes that Israelites &Moses made. Next year, we will offer this Day as The Day of All Things ... Father Speaks No other words are needed. That's the only thing that is needed ... The key to ev. G as F hasto reign over this nation ... We have to know & serve our HF & follow our HF AJU So, this boy Moon Young Myung has become Moon Sun Myung .. Know these 3 letters in the name The flowers & living scent of Love is sown again in the earth in order to fourish Don't forget as fruit of the Blessings become the true Father & Owner & become King of all Kings in the Land of this earth. Thru the textbooks & teaching materials for 12 yrs ago this day, and the Words of HF in order to realize a dreamlike Goal , HF has been realizin that Dream and HF is also the Owner Representing The Mother and He is the Root of this Providence. And upon this foundation which HF has crea we must become the substantial body of His Words & accept that as our own Dream and become the generation when this Dream starts; and we have to let this foundation remain & be inherited to our offspring. Please know the path that you have to walk. These words of Truth that give Life to the Heaven and earth was treated badly by peop; but These Words are infinite & will blossom like flowers, yellow flowers have blossomed in the spring .. Even tho TPs are treated so badly in the past, & the azalea flower following the seasons in order to become the axis, vertical, The fruits of the azelea flower ... it is the seed of counseling & relation & please become F & M & bro & sis of eternity, the eternal sons & daughters of mine ... following the found which we have created & its recreation... and your sons & daughters are the third fruits OT NT & HOly Testament... The Fourth dimension without hesitating the F eggs & M get together & explode & go beyond it to the world , love & life just like air that they breath like the heat of the sun, like Baektu Mts... Do your know the name of the peak? There is a very spiritual peak & a stone that moves back & forth & that rock has been trying so hard not to fall off the peak for tens/thousands of years & then this MSM comes out & in becoming MS M He has devoured the dragon & then He drank from that water pouch & ancestors of water, ancestors of air & ancestors of love that flow for eternity, and this tour which has been built with that kind of Dreams are now here. Centered upon the Fs Dream M inherits it & with the Hopes of Mother & continuing form that the Fruits of that Dream come. In order to hold on to F, The Creator has been working very hard, but this fact was flipped upsidedown. Until He became MSM He was among dark clouds, Even though all these clouds have disappeard , the tour that has thousands of floors ... (Do you know the top of the Himalayan Mts, top of the Mt. Baektu, the deepest place in the oceans, you have to know, The heaviest place in the universe is created & earth all the crea of the universe where is this creation/culmination Is it NY, Washing ton sounds like washing the stones and all the stones that are buried in the ground, They become the flowers & lighthouse which sheds light. And what is it that tried to devour/kill MSM the HookSokDong ... This HookSokDong is not in Heaven or hell. It is in Korea, boundarying the Han River overlooking this land of HongNam. RM has been trying to create it from black stone to white stone. (Sound of translation went) And when we say Jesus in Korean Ye Su if change to su ye It is the embroidery that your make a drawing on a piece of cloth. All these have disappeared. The last peop that follow the Light that comes from Lighthouse to reach Gs Sovereinty, where is that land That is Hansong, however, they have lost everything; and on that Lighthouse which sheds lights to the world up on the Baektu Mt., what is that place called? It is Baektu Mt... Among many mountains it stands out like an old man with white hair on top. Say Maekko Say Maekko. Even though the satanic world tried to eradicate HF & TPs, we must restore the parts of our bodies from organ to organ. The conclusion of the humanity, who are the peop who know the principle of east south north west? Who are the peop of sorrowful heart who now live all over the world. When you look at Chiness character 'han' which translates into sorrowful heart; and that Chinese character is as if telling us to find the nature, the water way, to find watering the air. Even G of Night & G of Day were separated and upon this separation & division, conflicts have arisen. On the top of Baektu Mt there is one peak that divides into two; and this tree bears fruits chaja nim the chajak means the queen or the king ... So my HakJa ... Mother is the person who gives birth the the F & even though they cannot live together or bear children & that is the philosophy of our Mother Han Hak Ja. And the Mother Che in order to kill me with thirteen peop of Her relatives, came to me & they want to receive the divorce from me; however, they all disappeared in the end. And the enemy of the man was not another man; however, a woman. Even the Creator Who Created all things in the universe cannot be given life without the womb of a Mother. So, Who did Eve ride? Eve flipped upsidedown this found where the Ideal World would have been upon; and Hootang ee the cury place ??? ***SooTang ee the ____place ... Adam & Eve were created through God & Whom, Who was it as part of G. Adam can be born verticall , perpendicularly ... He was not a single son, but ason & daugh ... as such it can rotate 180 degrees & put upside down, just like a wheel rotates 180 degrees & whether it is large or small it could be immediately replaced at any time ... There was not God The Mother. That is why we have to find Her. Without the Tradition without the Principle & without money ... it was not somethin that can be learned without all these these ... I cannot create a Mother without following her maybe a brother or father but not a Mother. If your look at my notebook handbook, it says Oct 12, 2011 Is She on my left arm or right arm .. I try to grab her left arm but there is nothing to grab.. Even if you have a thumb, without it you cannot grasp anything. The war or smell of war starts from the left side, so bring my book, I have to teach you. Quickly! My right hand is getting heavy. It is coming down. Why should my body descend It can grasp it with the right hand and lift it like this and left hand can become a supporting object; but it is the right hand that can lift object. Why called 'right' hand; Chun Jun Don jon say that.... It is your right rather than your left that is 'right'.. By placing your hand in this way, this can create a branch. Women will have four fingers ... There is something that should be hidden in these hands and if your represent it this way, it is north south east & west ... and like an antenna it can count 1,2,3,4,5 & if your do it like this 6 ... When yo turn it this way it becomes 5 Communism is usually refered to as left wing and we have 3, 8 , 7 or is it 3, 8 , 6? What is the UClan? It refers to brothers, neighbors ... Is board 1,2,4 or 100 When your say neighborhood is it my or your or is it grandfather or grandmother ... If you hold it this way your land or heaven will rise. You should say it louder . What is this? This contains the history of the Moon Clan .. It is the Central History of its ancestors .. What is the name of UC Is it absolute faith love or is it absolute owner. Believe & you have arelationship ... The word relationship is always there. It starts from one core. It is from there that it branches out. Otherwise, there will be 10 route. There should only be one root. If you say earth & heaven , cannot find your center ... so we say Heaven & Earth ... There is only one position one seat of coronation. On the opposite side at the end of your finger, it can stand on the end of your finger. The Core can be large. Our ancestors understood that there was a wide plain aroundthem. They do not know about the ocean or the mountains. What is the Center? It is the earth. ttang When you say ttang which means earth, you can pronounce it as dung ttang ... It either becomes a center or a smaller being. 2 goes to 3 and it comes down to the center. It goes around this way & that way and decide to go this way go down that way this way three or four times then it can go in 8 directions. So where is north, south, east & west .? Where is the center of the 5 great oceans of this world. What is amazing is that I know the 5 great oceans.. When my younger brother came to me & called me younger brother? My Mother & Father & all these relatives are dead this relative sometime in Feb when I was 17, 18 ... Maybe Feb. so if it was here at the Center he may go down , choose to go to the east or to the west; but, there will for sure be a Center which can go & seek east or south & then maybe another 3 or 4 times look to where the sun rises. I am teaching you. What is the Center? I am not the center. Do you have father & mother, I said I do and we went to the house & there were many peop from north, south, east & west. The Chinese characters it become smaller like this . two light strokes upwards. If you have a brush you can press it but for brothers you draw it like this at a 90 degree angles .. so you bring it in the same direction & make 1,2,4578 circlues but if you go ... you will be a dead end ... Count the segments of your hands to 11 but if you want to return you have to start again ... What happens to seven ... you can bring it there to make it seven , Should it be here ... this center may be smalle but when it can continue to expand in size until the 11 point and then from there it should return. So, from the high point is 10 Then you can count 1,2,3 .. If you unders this then you can unders the significance it goes up & down then to four , five six seven & start here again one two such things here if you move it in this way none of it can exist. All you would have is ridges , so how can it grow in size ... It can go up here and then go down ... What is it that can make it go up.? It is the # 13.. so we talk about 13.. In marries 12 & then 13 to 14 to 15 .. If you do 12 you can go more ... but it can expand to 13 & 14; but at 11 you have to decline so you have to move to 12 & then you can go to 15 ... You can count here 1,2,3 This segmnt (across high palm) the biggest finger meets with the pinky like this & is connected to 4 &5 but if you grasp it like this it is ... on the fourth knot even if you do it , it cannot come together. It is a free pinky... What about the origin is it a right son or it is four or five ... Even if I go up & rise , it can fall this way & that way ... then what is it of use ? But if you go in this way the two can cross paths here ... It hasto be a place where 2 can come together If you go for 3 , you have to go for 5 & 6 & 7 & if you go for lips? Young Jong Shik That is why that is his name & brother Yeong Jin Han is brother Jin Han ... He really appeared . Heon in Chinese character refers to th younger brother. Does the younger brother become the philosopher or the older brother. You need to find the right timing, Where does the right or left touch your clothes when you walk ... You right & left hand will be turned upsidedown & will break the order. It has to be a square ... Even if this part goes like this or like this, they woud all have th same length. In my pocket , I always have a handkerchief.. What are you going to do? with this? The younger brother has a runny nose, are you going to wipe the nose of the younger brother or you can also wipe the nose of the older brother. What is this? There is a phrase using the handkerchief. In Koreas you say that. F opens it all up and puts it over His Face... by doing this, this side is open. The higher place is concealed & the lower part of My Face is here. This is My Nose. Is this longer or is this longer? This side is straight & tighter than this side. It may fall down; but this side is longer. Right here it becomes like a plain. That is why you can use or wear this handkerchief .. If you wear it like this, what happens. You would be a crazy person would you not. This is the only one that can become a handkerchief It conceals the tops or the summit .. Is it concealed or not. If you do this, it has to be next to the bellybutton ... The bellybutton is hidden.. So please think about this. What do women have. Why is the man's sexual organ.... The woman's sexual organ is shorter than the man's; that is why it has to be inside & be hidden.. The right & the left hand . When you talk about top & bottom it indicates the direction. East & West is long & north & south is shorter. It is right about in the middle This is a bit longer. This side is shorter East & west is longer , north sourth is shorter. So, what happens? Would your face be shortened or not .. If you look at your nose & the other parts of your face ... The Bone is at the center & this part looks elongated. The back part is not that short. Once you become old , you become like an old lady.. The old man must protect the old lady. The grandfather must support the grandmother. If you go to your home , you should be able to support your parents. People did not know these Principles ... lef & right is different north & south is different. Which is higher the men's or the women's. Men are usually taller than the women , right. The positin of the belly button, men is higher , larger. Why are women short? Women! Why are you shorter than men? If it is larger than the lid, then it will be overturned. Even if it is place, it wil l not be overturned because it is shallow; but men are larger. So, is it the women who receives the man or man who receives the woman? Say poolie (testacles) Do men have them or women? Can men's testacles go this way & that way? If there is a lot of hot the testicles will move around depending on the temperature, they move as they want; but, they move it upon the women's. If you open your mouth too wide it can be ripped apart. If you aim for the belly button, 200 & 200 is 400. 200 & 300 do not match. If you put your feet & stand in the water then you would not drowned; but, if your touch the water you would drowned. Peop are not aware of that or peop know that? Cows have rings on their noses. In the past many Koreans bunched their hair on their head & if you remove that , what happens? Your hair drapes over your eyes not to be able tosee. All the directions will be different 460 degrees . All this may sound useless but this is all important. Is it better to be larger, the same or smaller which is best. Which would you choose. The same. Or you may be a person who would like to be longer, or larger. We say neighbors & cousins & all the peop in n s e w can be like your siblings ... If you stand before & behind you can be like b & s connected by blood. If you are higher, then you should grab it & then raise them up .. You first harmonize & then unify or vice versa. What about your two eyes, if they cannot harmonize & unite then they become like enemies . They do not have an opponent. And it's as if they are blind . We need to know such Principles. The basic scientific concepts of what RM is saying is based on that principle. Raise you hand. If you raise your hand and you raise it like this & you have this angle, it is comparable to a 35 degree angles ... F drinks And peop who can do this , which way they want to sit morning & night in dinner ... When I tell you to sit still even without your knowing your body moves like this to east & west ... Do you know the 4 directions. If you take a few steps up you can go above like this . By this we have to live for the sake of others so that you serve others & will be then served by the word and your will not disappear .. Is Gak Won Temple or oppsite. Why do you say south & north instead of north & south. We say nam nam buknam meaning women are better in the south & women in the north & m wonsong & chimnam po deep valleys there nampo, their valleys go like this .. this triangle position & the waiste is supposed to meet the belly button .. Only when you know this, then you shall unders why you should like this kind of things. So, when F is sitting here; and you are sitting in front of F, but it is not like that it is 90 18 120 130 175 degrees and then the beginning point comes from here sunha means above or below. chun oo cha oo after fall instead of sunha it is boocha we say right should be ooja but where the right side is supposed to be the left is there & the women is missing & it's burned ... If you draw lines, that point that is there is plus & minus & what was more & deeper, centering on all that, ... and th lesser becomes the south and the more becomes the north & east & west is also the same & all these valleys & ups & downs, so many in Busan & Baekja Province but in Baekju Mt they don't have that many ... In UC do we have more peop from North or East Province (Congla?) Many from plains & fields Province .. If you make your hand curved back ward .. On RM Hand there is no angle it is drawing a circle here . I can do this but you cannot your right hand does not move. As it bends it cannot move. So shall I sing a song or do your want to sing along too Po song no Wang wa rul opaaa he Olup so Sung jong je sun yeon ev is clapping along . cop jok dahl song se F has grandson now ... He starts clapping ... What was the song that involves grandma Che gap son Chul gap son the Chul gap mountain ? The sister who is supposed to be older but is younger than her seven younger sons , then is younger brothers fight they are kicked out of the house & if you don't sing this right you get dragged by another counntry ... I like sitting on my Grandfathers lap .. I like Daddy Daddy is nice You touch Fs skinn & Fs skin is nice & you should give F a kiss & that is right. .. Grandson is Woman & man is holding hands & they come closer & kiss but if the right hand and the right hand try to come together they cannot meet for eternity ... Clap agains F did a good job... clap again ... older grandson said Let's go fish together. We made this fishing place that we like in front of the ChunJongGung ... When F is sleeping he kicks F and if not he cries & sleeps after crying ... The grandchildren ar ancy ... Why don't we sing about the bright moon up on the heaven where eterbek lives ... In front of the odong tree ... All relatives ... Where is Sonungche Songyoungche ... Songyeong suk did he show you around . Did he say your are better than him or not .. east is better than west ... Moon Yongyong can look at the documents ... The dragon lives in the air .. The snake in the water withou poison , we call the screw snake it becomes bigger or smaller depending on th environment. My older brother, because he is smaller two of my older brothers who didn't listen to me ... All who liked me they died first and all my relatives who hated me , they all lived .. In the sw the relatives who liked me are not better off than the peop who hated me, & the peop who hated me are doctors serving like slaves of the peop who like RM .. Moon yeon Myung when He became Sun Myung Moon & if there is something I like there is something you hate. And when F sings a famous song, F can do that well. Dae Sarong Ee Ya Rang Chee Oh Hanna Nim It is as if conquering Gs Thrown (explaining words of the song) Sarang And we can do it until th 7th or 8th rhythm but from 9th we start losing it ... And who gave me this ... Who put this here ... This is like the secret box ... like in planes, it has all the info of the plane , altitude speed & change of speed on its path , the graff goes up & down like this . The theory has to coincide like the Principle .. What RM said when He was young fits the Principle, even tho some was unbelievable , it was correct by The Principle ... & we should not ignore our children because they will one day become the future/teachers? Why they kick their parents while they are sleeping ... We have this UC and all these strange & questionable peop come from the UC & we play a drum & when we go up & down the mt they go back & forth & if we do this for 7 or more years ... they become the grandfather & mother & when your have children yourself they are all the mongchin in a special bug .. & the RM ev thought was a stupid bug , He has now matched & has become the King of their village .. The TPs Volume 1 & 2 stand up if you have the two Volumes .. F is looking very intently ... How did you come into possession of these books, did you steel them .. Volume 1 & 2 if you have 3, please sit down A lot of you have Vol 3 .. and if you have this picture , please stand up .. You get this from having the third volume . There are so many of my allies in the world ... It has been less than 30 or 40 years and this is what happens & you put it in your wallet upside down & this becomes the grandfather & mother with crowns & here this stands & come to me proudly if you have something to say ... and what is this One Will, The Will of Heaven? The Will of One is to create Two. That is the man's responsibilit to create two. YongChongShik Come up here. So when you come up front should you just extend your hands or bow three times to represent OT NT & CT ... So on your feet , your but goes upside down. Do you know how to greet, are your here because your like F or like to run the funeral when F dies. Do you have a present? I am grandfather of 4 generations There is no one who will go to Heaven. No one is Blessed ... Did Confuscious get Blessed? No. Mohammed? No. They went to the sw . When you come to your Parents to congratulate on a certain event. You come bearing a gift instead of coming to receive something .. So why don't you sing a song .. A song of Liberation. Famous person If you sing well , I'll give your a prize ... Rev. Yong ... Talgo enun ge Se go no nenuga Sa kwol olchage keehe nun chun Cha so yemu cha e ne Ev together Che dul do chee mul cha nun chee bul chang chol sa na ye na o chang ee he hee ... Chee gun mun hagu n Che gul mun olun F is commanding words to sing I think ... Mo happa na shi now stops Rev. Yong It says King Father 'I want to go fishing' And so you don't have the authority to make someone sing ... D you have the authority of F M uncle no you don't have any that authority so that is why you disappear to the scene behind ... Calling another to sing ... She is coming Why don't you come here with ShinJin & sing a song ... Where is ShinIm's Mother Please sing together ... Yeon A Choi Ha ha ha oh hal mi ko Hyo JN' s children ... Shall I throw this away & go or shall I go with you ? Are you here to celebrate this Day of Parents Children & all things or receive to be congratulated ... Are you here with your lunch & dinner. Why because you want to be served. What kind of guests come here to be served. That doesn't fit the Principle. Rev. M gets kicked out of hell because even in hell he said the Principled things. The MRA The Head of that Org is teaching RM MRA in Las Vegas is the Teaching Center in LV That is very good. Now grandchildren .. Where is ShinJin .. Shin Jin has to be with you. So even though you are younger Shin Jin you have to lead them . ShinJin is on the left of them ... F likes it Two older sisters are sitting there liking what's happening. so why don't you come out .. Hyung JN &InJN They sing Amazing Grace F is whistling F is liking it ... He waves & does with His Hands ... Ya Ya F says ... Why don't we invite you to sing ... HyungJin brothers song If there are a lot of K sing in K or Am sing in Eng... They are looking for the lyrics I bring HyoJin alongwith me a lot & teach him to sing & He knows how to fight also . He does these well. Heaven likes earth and earth heaven & HyoJn likes the songs that peop on earth like & heaven he ike what heaven likes. Okay then sing in English but so sisters sing in English later brother sings in Korean .. (Sings something Hyun JN always used to sing) Father is affected by this ... And now HyungJN , You have to sing in Korean & the older sister try to sing along too. From Hyung JN , Mother used to cry a lot .. and He used to cry a lot with His Mother. . So I will sing in Korean ...same song in Korean ... F is very quiet & respectful ... fixing paper and now Hand Gestures ... Now I stand up and go , so Mother ? Why don't you call Mother. Let us thank our TPs with a warm round of applause . Where is Mother? Tell Her to come quickly . I'm hungry too. Now that I've become a Grandfather, now you can even smell breakfast, lunch or dinner. Where is the Book. Tell Hyung JN to bring that Book. So, you have to hold it & when Mother is here , and dance . So, before Mother comes, wh don't we sing that song. YeonAhNim sings Hyunng JN stands next to her. Yeon Ah Nim knows the words very well ... 'Mother is here Hyung JN Says & all applause & rise ... Now flower presentation & 3 Cheers of Monsei ... Ang Nef Te Call & wife offer flowers ... Since the two of us have come , let's sing a song before we leave. All of you probably yearn for your hometown .. 191 should have 200 nations. Not the one Mother started ... Ne Goo Yong My Hometown ... F is holding tight to HyungJN My hometown I can visualize the waters there How can I forget even in my dreams the beautiful oceans of my hometown. I wish to go there as days go by ... Where have all my friends & comrades who I have been with . Where have they gone. I shall never forget them wherever I go. What are they all doing right now. I long to see them ... All surround TP. Why have I now left my hometown and live here . I want to return . Maybe I'll return . Go and be with my friends and live like how I did in the past. TPs walking through the asle ' Life to laugh & cry' The birds are my friends , even now are living there ... I am alone. How is it that now I have come to live alone like this ? I will like to quickly go back & live together . all applaud. I really sing a good song . Listen carefully. F & M start singing another song TPs went down the isle & back to the stage ... 3 Cheers ... 8th Anniversary of HSA & 50th of Day ofAll Things ... TPs with stroller with grandchild ... And all offer a bow and disperse ... We will finish this Event and Thank You very much for coming ... Ceremony now for witnessing results. F sent some fish to distribute to everyone ...


5. Stone, Tom

Stone, Tom

Finding lost brother motivated soldier to enlist By Wilson Ring Associated Press MONTPELIER, Vt. — John Thomas Stone was a junior in high school when his older brother Dana, a freelance photographer, disappeared in Cambodia along with Sean Flynn, the son of the actor Errol Flynn. Tom Stone joined the Army in 1971 shortly after he graduated from Woodstock High School, motivated at least in part by a desire to learn what had happened to his brother. On Wednesday, Stone, still a soldier 35 years later but now in the Vermont National Guard, was killed in combat in Afghanistan. “He had it in his mind he might go and try to find his brother,” when he enlisted, said Elisha Morgan, now of Norwich, who played football with Stone in high school. Dana Stone was listed as missing in action for years and was eventually listed as dead. But Tom Stone never lost the sense of adventure the military imbued in him or his desire to help those around him. Sgt. 1st Class Stone, 52, was killed by small arms fire in Afghanistan Tuesday afternoon, Vermont time, while he was helping Afghan soldiers repel an attack on their forward operating base in the southern part of the country. “He was the best friend anyone could have, anybody,” Morgan said. “I know when he was shot he was helping others. That’s all he did. He never cared about financial gain. He did it out of love for humanity.” Over the years Stone served in the regular Army, the reserves and the Vermont National Guard. Between 1992 and 2000 he walked around the world, literally, 22,000 miles through 29 countries. Stone was on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan with the Vermont National Guard when he was killed. Guard officials and Stone’s friends remember a man who dedicated himself to others. During his earlier Afghan tours, Stone, a trained medic, set up a clinic for Afghan civilians in a shipping container. It served thousands of people. It was in a similarly foreign land that Stone lost his brother. On April 6, 1970, Dana Stone was on assignment for CBS News and Flynn for Time Magazine. They had ridden into the Cambodian countryside on motorbikes when they were captured by communist guerrillas. They were never heard from again. At the end of the Vietnam War American officials pressed the North Vietnamese for an accounting of Dana Stone, Flynn, and a number of other missing journalists. No answer was ever forthcoming. Dana Stone’s widow, Louise, who died in 2000, was told her husband and Flynn were probably tortured to death. Tom Stone’s cousin Sally Britton told the Vermont Standard newspaper from Woodstock in 1997 that her cousin’s adventurous spirit was in his blood. “I remember when we were kids, Dana would tell us stories of his adventures and Tom would just sit there, wide-eyed, taking in every word,” Britton said. Laurie Schultz Heim, a staffer for Sen. James Jeffords, said she worked with Tom Stone as he tried to get answers about what happened to his brother. Stone told Jeffords’ staff that his family, and especially his mother, needed closure. In 1987, Jeffords, then Vermont’s lone representative in the U.S. House, read a statement about Dana Stone on the floor of Congress. “He drifted in and out of our radar screen, always with an unusual and poignant sense about him,” said Schultz Heim, who communicated with Stone occasionally as he walked around the world. “Not only did he do this trip in part searching for his brother, I think he was always searching for what he wanted to do. Clearly he was definitely looking for meaning in life,” she said. Morgan said Stone’s favorite poem was “The Men that don’t Fit In,” a 1916 work by Robert Service. The poem talks about men who can’t stay in one place and who break the hearts of their family members. “He was a man’s man,” Morgan said. “If he could have written he would have been an Ernest Hemingway.” Stone never married but he left a life partner, Rose Loving of Tunbridge, and a sister in Florida. Vermont Administration Secretary Michael Smith graduated from high school with Stone and Morgan. Smith joined the Navy after high school and went on to become a Navy Seal commando. Smith said he practiced for his Navy swimming test in the Stones’ family pond in Pomfret. “He was an individual, even though he was military. His motivation was always to help people in need, particularly kids,” said Smith. “I used to sit back and say he had it right. He had that sense of the world that ‘I need to help.’ He was an adventurer and he sought people out and tried to help them.” Vermont guardsman killed in Taliban attack By Wilson Ring Associated Press COLCHESTER, Vt. — A Vermont National Guard soldier serving on a base with Afghan soldiers in the southern part of the country was killed Wednesday during an attack by Taliban militants, Guard officials announced. Sgt. 1st Class John Thomas Stone, 52, of Tunbridge, who was known as Thomas, was killed by small arms fire, said Gen. Martha Rainville, commander of the Vermont Guard. Stone was on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan, she said, and was attached to Task Force Catamount. “He felt he was making a difference,” Rainville said. “He cared very much about others in the world.” Also killed in the attack was a Canadian soldier, identified as Pvt. Robert Costall of the 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton, Alberta. Stone was unmarried but left a longtime partner, Rose Loving of Tunbridge, Rainville said. He had no children but a sister lives in Florida. Stone joined the Army after his graduation from Woodstock Union High School in 1971 and has served in the active duty Army, the Reserves or the National Guard since, officials said. He has worked full-time for the Vermont Guard since 2000. The attack took place early in the morning Wednesday in Afghanistan, which was still Tuesday afternoon in Vermont. He was assigned to train Afghan troops and was directing the soldiers when he was shot, Rainville said. He was wearing full body armor at the time. Officials in Afghanistan said at least five coalition troops were wounded in the same attack, including three Canadians and an American. A small contingent of Canadian and American forces serve alongside Afghan troops at the base in the Sangin district of the volatile Helmand province. Stone’s death brought to 223 the number of U.S. service members killed in and around Afghanistan since the ouster of the Taliban in 2001. Twelve Canadians have been killed in the turbulent country since 2002, according to the Canadian Press news agency. Stone was the first Vermonter killed in Afghanistan and the 11th National Guard member killed in combat since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Twenty-one U.S. service members with Vermont ties have been killed in action in Iraq. A 22nd soldier died of natural causes in Kuwait while waiting to enter Iraq. Vermont National Guard Capt. Jeff Roosevelt served in Afghanistan two years ago during Stone’s previous deployment. “He always had a positive attitude, always looked at the bright sides of things,” Roosevelt said after Rainville’s news conference at Vermont National Guard headquarters in Colchester. Stone, who was trained as a medic and known as “Doc,” set up medical clinics for the Afghans that Roosevelt said probably saved hundreds of civilian lives. Rainville, who is preparing to leave her post on Friday to run for Congress, said it had been a demanding time for the Guard. “This continues to be just a difficult time for the National Guard and the state,” she said. “Each loss just affects so many people.”


6. MEET ALICE @ Fat Funk

  • Published: 2017-10-16T08:27:14+00:00
  • Duration: 31
  • By LMB
MEET ALICE @ Fat Funk

Alice and the cursed cave. Come and meet Alice for yourself at Razzett L-Ahmar on the 21st and 28th of October for an original Halloween Special. Legend has it, that in the dark ages, a demon witch was burned in this very cave. Her evil essence, trapped within the enchanted walls forever. Never to claim another human soul again. 300 years later, Alice and her 2 children, Jack a young boy and Hope an infant child, were caught in a freak storm. Suddenly, Jack slipped down an old air vent that flooded through to the cursed cave. The presence of mortal flesh awakened the demon and the walls dripped and oozed her evil funk. The panicked mother grabbed little Hope tightly against her bosom, and descended into the abyss after Jack. Before she could reach her son, a cursed drop fell from the cave ceiling into Alices’ mouth. The demon had found its new host. Alice, overcome by the evil force, cracked her infant daughter’s neck and dropped her still warm but lifeless body to the wet, cave floor. Jack watched in horror as his baby sister’s soul was consumed by his possessed mother. Terrified, he scampered up the side of the cave kicking and hurling loose rocks down at his own mother as she clawed and screamed, hungry for his pure soul. The demon grabbed Jacks’ arm with her clawed hands but luckily, the walls caved in and separated Jack from his possessed mother. The demon, screaming her hellish yells, scratched and clawed to try and reach the boy, but the enchanted rocks kept her trapped once again. Now Alice’s possessed spirit haunts the cave, forever hungry, forever searching for her lost children. Whilst renovating Razzett L-Ahmar, the cave was discovered. From the darkness, a terrifying man emerged, with rotting flesh, but mysteriously lively. It is Jack! He tells of his ordeal, the darkness, the screaming, the constant scratching. But worst of all, the lullabies in his sweet mothers voice that the witch would sing to torment him into freeing her upon the world. Now, Jack needs your help to break the curse. Speak the words together and free Alice, baby Hope and all the souls from across the ages. But remember…… DON’T PANIC!


7. [English/French Subtitles] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah(HA) - War On Terror - March 21, 2002

[English/French Subtitles] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah(HA) - War On Terror - March 21, 2002

Landmark speech by Hizbullah Secretary General - delivered on the 20st of March 2002 (6th Muharram 1423) regarding the recently (at that time recently) US imposed so-called "War on Terrorism" - following the attacks on the World Trade Centre Towers in New York. This version has English and French Subtitles. "The racial discrimination towards the blacks is still persisting in every aspect. Moreover, there is a racial discrimination towards the Red Indians who are the original inhabitants of the country. ...I tell you frankly that if it wasn't for the determined willingness, ... and fight of the Palestinian people, the Americans and their civilization would have decided to solve that problem of...Palestinians just like they did with the Indians. This is the picture that lies in the mind of the American." --Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah - Muharram 7, 1423 The Secretary General of Hizbullah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah(HA), addressing the people on the seventh night of Muharram for the year 1423 (March 20, 2002) In this lecture, Sayyed Hassan(HA), explains the roots of Zionist occupation and American colonialism and so-called "New World Order", this is well worth reading. In the Name of Allah the most Beneficent and most Merciful. Praise be to Allah the lord of the world, and may peace and Allah's praises be upon our master and prophet, the purifier of our sins, and the love of our hearts Mohammed ibn Abdullah followed by his pure progeny, rightful followers, and all the martyrs and mujahideen for Allah's teachings since the birth of Adam until the day of judgment. May peace be upon you my lord and master Abu Abdullah Al Hussein, and upon those spirits who are floating around thy grave. I send you my adoration as long as night follows day. I ask my dear Allah to keep me committed to continuously visit thee and thy family. May peace be upon Al Hussein, Ali the son of Al Hussein, the sons of Al Hussein, and the followers of Al Hussein. Dear brothers and sisters, May peace be upon you all; Allah says in his Glory book Verily, Fir'aun (Pharaoh) exalted himself in the land and made its people sects, weakening (oppressing) a group (i.e. Children of Israel) among them: killing their sons, and letting their females live. Verily, he was of the Mufsidûn (i.e. those who commit great sins and crimes, oppressors, tyrants). And We wished to do a favor to those who were weak (and oppressed) in the land, and to make them rulers and to make them the inheritors, And to establish them in the land, and We let Fir'aun (Pharaoh) and Hâmân and their hosts receive from them that which they feared. Let's remember some of the words in my speech I read to you on the first night. I said that Al Hussein may peace be upon him, rose up and fought with the very few members of his family and his companions. He was protecting Islam, the values of Islam, and the existence of this religion, in order to prevent its termination, transformation, vanishing, or the manipulation of its teachings in an aim to send the people back to the early days of ignorance. I added saying that there are many challenges at this time in which we are living. The declaration of war by the American Administration these days is nothing but a war on Islam, on the values of Islam, on the understandings of Islam, on the Quraan of Islam, and on the Prophet of Islam on the grounds that the existence this religion lives among the people of this nation and its Muslim followers. I would like to stand up today in the atmosphere of this declaration of war to try and comprehend, explain, and realize the issues widely surrounding us. Consequently we'll realize our stand, the enemy we are facing, and the sort of reality or fact we are living in at this present time. When we go back and read some of the words or phrases of the American president Bush speeches during the past few days, weeks and months, we will find that some of his words and phrases identified the title of this war. For example, from what he said: it is the responsibility of each American at the present time to guarantee the domination and the spread of the American values in other parts of this world. I repeat the domination and the spread of the American values in other parts of this world. He spoke these words while he was addressing his officers and soldiers, encouraging them to be patient, endure and tolerate the difficulties. He told them we are fighting for the values of civilization (of course it would be the materialistic American civilization!). He promises to send forces to this country or that in more than one occasion, and that he aims at transferring the values of the American society to the various countries, societies, and states, since terror cannot be exterminated by the means of military and security only. Yet he says it should be fought by means of culture, which means that we should wipe out the culture that gives birth to terrorists and uprisings, in order to replace it with another culture, which would not push those society individuals to commit acts of terror (of course it would be the terror according to the American comprehension). In any case, this issue becomes clear to us, since even this war, which Bush announced, did not rely on any basic rules or thoughtful and cultural or educational rules. After his announcement of this war, he gave missions to a number of his American educationalists to write theories about this war, just as our leader imam Khamenaei(HA) said a few days ago. After their declaration of war, starting the war, attacking Afghanistan, killing whomever they wanted, doing whatever they wanted. A group of their American educationists were assigned to write theories and ideologies about this war, to write the basics of the ethics and the theories for which this war stood. Yet this confirms that what is being applied by America is killing first then issuing a verdict later. First we kill then we issue the verdict of killing. The American educationists issued a statement of mass killing but after the mass killing, which confirms that the ground on which this American war stands is not what these educationists are claiming, but something else. Bush is calling for the world to follow his values (excluding Europe of course), he's aiming at the Arab and Islamic world in the first degree, a world from which he sees terrorists, yet his list of terrorists include mostly that of the states, organizations, parties, and personalities who belong to this Islamic world. Yet his promise to us is that the values of his society should conquer that of our countries and societies and replace them. This night we will try to present a short and calm reading of the virtues and values of the American society, the virtues and values that are ruling the American society, and which he is promising and preaching to us. He says that he will bring his values to our countries in order for us to become good people and not terrorists. Of course we must discover the truth, which lies clearly and sharply behind the picture that is showed by the media about the society of the USA, a picture that is a lie. Anyway, This truth could be discovered by reading some reports, studies, books, documentaries, and even watching some movies that shows some aspects of life in the society of the USA, we can reveal this truth through the various numbers of the statistics. About one or two years ago and during the first night of Muharram I read my speech that was mostly statistical. I said that there were many actions of killings and murders, the increase in the number of prisons and prisoners, mentally sick people, drug users, and so one. I still remember a significant number, which is: in the USA there is one out of five who is mentally sick. I also mentioned statistics of murders, rapes, thefts, drugs, bandits, mafias, and the increasing number of the illegitamet children as a result of adulteries, and I read the numbers in your hearings. There was a group of the American Press on that night. This group had an appointment with me on the following day. When they met with me I asked them what was their comment on what I had mentioned the day before and whether my information was or was not correct explaining that I relied on magazines, journals, and Arabic studies that may or may not be correct. They replied telling me that the information and statistics that I mentioned yesterday were very old, and that the numbers were much less than those numbers and statistics published by USA press. It seems like the issues take much longer to reach to the Arab world. Of course they were right because I said last year that these statistics belonged the years of 92, 93 or 95, and that we did not have accurate statistics. Tonight I do not have statistics because time is too short to mention both statistics and the idea, which I am going to read to you, and I ask you to give interest to its headings in order to obtain statistics and numbers that are high and amazing. If we travel in our minds to the reality of the American society and the values, which are in fact ruling the American society, we will find that there are three basic issues that control the life of that society, the system, administration and the people as well. These three basic issues are: money, sex, and power. Try harder to look inside that society and you might find some limited phenomenas that do not relate to these three basic issues. But at the most any phenomena, politics, relations or bonds found in the American society are related to these three issues and ruled by them. The ruling values in the American society are the same as those ruled during the Roman's Empire (money, sex and power), we will find that these rules will strongly interpret themselves when we enter the fields of society, family, morality, economy, military, politics and others. We'll try and enter these fields one at a time. When we enter the social life in the USA we can see where their values and virtues are leading. I have more than one heading. The first heading says that the ruling values in the social life there are always leading to breaking the family bonds. The family is melting and slowly perishing in that society. Imagine a society in which the families are facing such circumstances that are against natural laws. There are steep declines in the percentage of the number of marriages, steep inclines in the percentage of the number of divorces, and the popularity of marriage dishonesty (where it becomes popular and not an exception), yet running away from family responsibilities. When boys and girls reach a certain age, the law allows them to do whatever they like from all the sins that the law allows (the end). Therefore you can notice that the son or daughter can go and come, as he or she likes, and thus why you find that the American family is usually lacking in unity. Each member of the family (father, mother, son, daughter) is going into a different direction. They might see each other 1-3 times in a year, at Christmas, New Year, or on Thanksgiving Day (when a roast turkey will gather them). During the rest of the year no one knows what happens to the other. Is the boy in prison? Is the girl lost? No one cares about the other. The family bonds or what we call family kind loving relations do not exist. There is a widespread of illegitamet or unlawful relationships, meaning that adultery in the American society is a popular aspect, or a culture but not an exception. Any human society in any ther country might face adultery relations, but it would be exceptional and limited, practiced in secret or slightly becomes an activity of the norm. Once adultry becomes the habit and culture of the society, it would lead to the phenomenon of prostitution. Where would all this lead? There are tens of millions of the USA births, where children do not have fathers; it is not a matter of only a thousand or two; it is one, two, or tens of millions. I remember a statistic that included forty million when Clinton was a president (I don't know if that statistic exaggerated). This reason enforced Clinton to hold a convention at that time in order to discuss and limit this phenomenon. The children born from adultery are being registered under the name of their mothers. Another abnormal relationship is that of incest, where a father sleeps with his daughter, a brother sleeps with his sister. Let us not forget the gays, Lesbians, and son on. These facts are an extraction and I do not want to lengthen the subject more than this, but we must realise that when we examine the popular sides of the society and families, we find that these are the ruling values that live in American society. This completely means that Bush is saying to us your girls are well mannered, they have honors, shyness and bashfulness. However I will send you the values spreading presently in our societies and families. Every now and again the police takes Bush's daughters into custody and gather them from the pubs, not forgetting his nieces as well. Then they would say that his daughters are poor, they are alcoholic, and just like their daddy. The main power that existed in our Arabic and Islamic world is still existing, and that is the power of the family bond, this bonding, this atmosphere of love, passion morality, and socialism; these are the issues they want to strike. The values of the American society say that these vitrues should no longer exist. We come to the conclusion of the first heading, which is the scattering and breaking unity of the family. The second heading is in regards to the social issue. There is an incline in the percentage of of the number of murders and killings. Last time I read some amazing statistics regarding this phenomenon including the incidents of rubbery, assault and rape. I remember the statistics quoting that every minute there is such and such. It mentioned drugs, alcoholism, mafias, armed bandits, and the number of the prisons and prisoners was increasing in the USA, yet the violent culture was becoming popular. The American films show mostly violence and sex actions, which reflect the life of American society. Where to do these films and this culture of violence would lead? We hear every while that a teenager who is 8,10 or 15 years has entered his school while shooting his classroom mates. It means that he entered the classroom then directed the brunt of his bullets towards his mates with whom he has been sitting, drinking, eating, learning and playing for many years leading to their death. So the second heading is the increase of murders and killings inside the American society. On this occasion I would like to tell you that if you examine the society of the Islamic and Arab world, the number of troubles and incidents, and the supressing circumstances applied by the regimes; then try to write a statistical report about the number of killings each year all over the Islamic and Arab world, you will find that the percentage is far less than that of the USA. The Third title is the severe psychiatric and spiritual crisis and the cultural and spiritual emptyness. A person is not just a body whose needs alone have to be satisfied and fullfilled. Besides the body there is the spirit that has needs as well such as love or passion of fatherhood, motherhood, brotherhood and other related relationships like friends. A man cannot avoid this side of needs. A person can fullfill his private body needs and seductions, be in control of power or whatsoever. On the other hand he feels that he needs a father, a mother, a brother, a sister, a friend, good relations with others, love, tenderness, and to a much wider and higher horizon, which is reaching the absolute of such feelings. This crisis is expressed by the high percentage of the ill people complaining of psychiatric illnesses in the society of the USA, and in the percentage of people who are abusing drugs and alcohol. The suicide percentage is rising one year after another, and yet there is the phenomenon of committing suicide in-groups (which means that fifty or sixty persons gather and commit suicide at one time). We can add to all these subjects the subject of racial discrimination as well when we talk about the values of the society of USA and Mr. Bush. Fourteen hundred years ago this Quraan accused by the Americans of being a book of terror came down with a sign of Allah that said: I created both male and female and made thee different races so that you could meet and know each other, he who is the most generous at Allah is the most pious. Yet the prophet of this religion Mohammed ibn Abdullah (may peace be upon him) came to assure this idea and confirm that a man is no better than another except in his good deeds, there is no difference between Arab and a foreigner, or black and white. Islam terminated this idea 1400 years ago. While on the other hand this issue of racial discrimination is still present as I speak in the society of USA. There is a strong racial discrimination and hard feeling towards black people. Who are these black people? When you look at a black man in the USA you must place a picture before your eyes which resembles the British and European colonists who conquered this new land of America accompanying with them hundreds of thousands of the black people who were brought as slaves from Africa in order to serve them in the USA. The racial discrimination towards the blacks is still persisting in every aspect. Every now and again we read in the American press scripts about objections and sometimes watch demonstration and incidents on the screens due to this racial discrimination. Moreover, there is a racial discrimination towards the Red Indians who are the original inhabitants of the country. After all these facts I tell you frankly that if it wasn't for the determined willingness, courage, Jihad, and fight of the Palestinian people, the Americans and their civilization would have decided to solve that problem of Israel between the Jews and Palestinians just like they did with the Indians. This is the picture that lies in the mind of the American. It is the picture of what they did with the original owners of the lands in the USA, it is how they are looking at them and treating them in the several aspects of life. We may in some cases find that there is a black in a high position of a certain party, or in a high position in the American administration, which means that if it was true it is an exception. Yet I believe that this is only a decoration to hide the real life these blacks and Indians are facing, and the reality of the racial discrimination that is persisting in the society of the USA. Now let us examine the values of the American society when it comes to the military issue. Speaking of the great American state-of-the-art regarding the military level, the first matter that would hit your mind is the crime of the 20th century. What is this crime? It is the bombarding of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan using nuclear bombs, and killing the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. All the military researchers confirm that the USA did not need such operation to end the battle. The USA executed that operation in order to terrorize Japan and the world, and to impose its presence and power within the framework of the formation of the world's new system after the war. This Psychiatric background is nothing but revenge. It was a revenge for 2000 American soldiers or more who were killed by the Japanese suicide fighters. To revenge for 2000 soldiers they don't kill 2000 Japanese soldiers, or even 20000 Japanese soldiers; instead they kill hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children of the Japanese civilians. This past century did not witness such crime; I don't think that even all the passed centuries have witnessed such crime. A crime that is extremely ugly and evil committed by the USA against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some of those who conducted this act are still alive in America and married with children. This means that this act is not very old and is not as if it took place 200 or 300 years ago. Let's talk about the war crimes in Vietnam. (The American is funny, he exaggerates and shakes the whole world because one American civilian was kidnapped and killed). In order for the Americans to win the war in Vietnam, they had no objection in destroying, burning, and wiping out complete Vietnamese villages, which sheltered women and children farmers. They destroyed these villages because they thought that it could secure shelter and food for the Vietnamese fighters, or may offer support and information. On the other hand it may offer nothing. In order to crush the will of the Vietnamese fighters they would go ahead and burn a Vietnamese village completely. These actions are not old as well and as if they took place 100 years ago; no it happened some years ago. Let's talk about war crimes in Afghanistan. They say the Americans made a mistake and wiped out a village (it's ok it was a mistake and no one says anything). Then they wipe out another village and say it's another mistake (it's ok the information was wrong, it was a mistake and no one says anything). Then a third time the same happens. You can count the Afghani villages that were destroyed by the American warplanes only because they doubted that they sheltered bases for Taliban and Al Qaeda, and no one says anything. This is Strange! Where are the organizations of human rights? Where is the European Union? Where is the Organization of the Islamic Conference? Where is the world? Where are the values of this world? Where is the civilization? Nothing. No one is allowed to whisper since Bush is angry. There were some people who were killed in New York and Washington, and Bush has the right to revenge by whatever means he wishes. Isn't that so? The warplanes flew and wiped out a convoy that included many Afghan tribe Sheikhs. Then they say it's a mistake. They did not even apologize. These spirits of the civilians killed in Afghanistan were not even respected by the USA. I remember that there was one problem hanging between the Vietnamese and the Americans about whether the Americans should or should not apologize for what they did in Vietnam. I don't think they did. The Americans committed these war crimes. Let us go further back in history to examine what they did to the Red Indians. What can we find? These poor Indians are incapable of producing cinema films to show the reality of what happened. But the Americans can produce many films to present the American soldiers as poor people who are defending civilization, and they place red feathers on the heads of the Red Indians picturing them as ignorant and immoral barbarians, and that they are attacking the peaceful Americans who in fact came and raped their lands and built forts on them. Isn't this is how the American films are? The Red Indians came and attacked the fort, but the Americans did not come to occupy the lands of the Indians. The same is happening now to the Palestinians in Palestine. The Palestinians are attacking the Jews and their colonies or settlements, while it is not the Jews who came from outside then raped the lands and built settlements in Palestine. We can also examine the helping hand of the American to many terrorizing and suppressing organizations in the world with arms, intelligence, training, support, and the most sophisticated American weapons (tested and provided). The most obvious example of these is Israel who is sponsored by the USA regarding the complete military association. Now let's talk about the economic issue. America is known to be a capitalistic monster due to its great economic values. Who is this monster? It represents a group of the greatest American companies and banks that hold and control everything. Consequently fortune will grow for a little number of the rich who will grow richer every year. On the other hand the rest of the people can hardly make a living and their lives might improve slightly. It may feel strange when I say that there are tens of millions of the Americans who are living below the poverty line, and are being unemployed. These are mostly blacks, red Indians, and some others. There is a group of savages controlling this economy. These great companies that control economy and banks extend their hands to reach media and politics. Don't you think that these great industrial companies especially the arms industrial companies are the ones that brought George Bush to power. Now he is fulfilling his commitment towards them. These are examples of the economical values ruling in the American society, the concentration of money at the hands of a limited group, while unemployment, and poverty lies especially at the blacks. Did you know that they destroy large and huge quantities of crops? For example they dump large quantities of wheat grains in the sea in order to maintain its value, while at the same time millions are dying from hunger. These are the American values, stealing the wealth of others. What's happening in Africa for example? Everyday we wake up to hear that wars are erupting in many African countries leading to the death of thousands. Do you think that the Africans are fighting with one another? I don't think so, because they did not fight previously and the daily living matters were normal and quiet. In fact there is a conflict of interest between the colonial influences. These are the new USA autocracy, and the old colonial situation. In Africa many European countries have their shares like France, Britain, Italy, Holland, and even Belgium. Now the Americans came to wipe out all of these to inherit everything. Who is fighting the African people? They themselves are fighting each other. Who is killing the Africans? They themselves are killing one another. In the end the American is in control and is stealing the wealth of those countries, then take it to the great American companies, while giving the Africans the very little and accept them as working farmers or mines workers, not more nor less. Stealing and controlling other's wealth are the economic values of the American society. The Islamic world today is recognized to be the greatest exporter of the oil in the world, but tell me can the Arab and Muslim exporters of oil control the prices of oil. No, they can't, they don't dare to, and they don't even dream of doing so, since in fact this issue lies in the American controlling hands. They are working on submitting the economy of the world to the interest of the American economy. They are doing this even to their ally and friend Europe. The Europeans are frequently raising alarms. America is forcing deals from one side. It applies economic punishment, and punishes the Europeans, Japan, Russia, and China. But in the Arab world we don't get punished because we don't upset them. I have gathered these ideas for you to have an idea about the real identity of this American society, this American administration, and the values, which are ruling the American society. What they tell the world about democracy and human rights are nothing but lies in order to control and rule the world, this is in regards to political issue. The American values say that America must interfere in each country or state (which is against the international law). The American values tell the Americans to impose systems on people, systems that people do not want. The American intelligence has always had the ability to organize coups, uprisings, and changes in some of the world's systems. It enforced rules on people against their will. This is the democratic country that is calling others to democracy. It is known as well that USA was and still supporting some of the greatest autocrats in the world, and it says it wants to spread democracy and freedom. Let's take an example: The Shah system that was not present at the time of Bush, it was present at the time of Carter and even before. Did the Iranian people elect the Shah or was it an autocratic royal system against their will? The Shah had an absolute power. The whole world knew that the Americans brought in the shah with a coup against Musaddak at that time. They brought him in against the will of the Iranians along with an autocratic royal system. No freedom was allowed, and there were no human rights. America defended the shah up till the last moment. Why? Because America was the one who ruled Iran, while the shah was just an American tool. The ones who ruled Iran at the time of the Shah were 60,000 American experts and consultants. They controlled the army, economy, oil, education, media, radio and television, and all the documents confirm these issues. We know that at present all the elected autocratic systems in the world are supported, and protected by the USA because they are under their control and apply their interest. So the issue is an issue of money and power and not an issue of democracy, freedom, and human rights. The country whose system submits to the American policy and declares its willingness to serve the American interest would have enough qualifications to become under the USA. Isn't this is the political reality in the world? Let someone else say otherwise. At this point I do not want to mention names of such systems since the Arab summit is soon and we are having guests in Lebanon after some days, and we do not want to upset anyone. This reality shows the American political program, which is the terrorizing of the states in the world. Anyone who does not submit to America will be placed on the list of terrorists. Let's take another example: imagine this story. Two days ago they say there was a leak (look to how they play games). They said that the pentagon with its greatness is informatively penetrated and that there was a leak. This leak was done on purpose in order to converse about placing plans for nuclear strikes against each of the following countries: Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Russia, and China. Later on the national security councilor and the American foreign secretary start explaining and clarifying the issue saying that America is naturally a threatened country, and that they must have precautions and procedures, but on the other hand they do not have any order to strike anyone with nuclear weapons. Nevertheless the message reached its destiny informing the people of these countries that America is ready to strike you with nuclear weapons when necessary. Is this the American civilization Bush is asking for to be spread all over the world? What's America's problem with these countries? First of all Iran has cut relationships with America. China was meeting with America two days ago. Bush was visiting China and Russia to meet with them. So what's the problem? The problem is that if these countries wanted to have independent decisions, and did not submit to the American decisions, then it would be enough for America to place them on the list of terrorists. This subject does not need any more explanation in order to speak out the political truth and the absolute American sponsorship to the raping Israeli entity, supporting it politically, economically, militarily and with media. The American values allow the American administration to support the conquering and invading occupier, terrorist, and murderer (Israel), yet punishes and seizes the poor tyrannized people of Palestine whose lands have been occupied and who were dispelled from their lands. What is Cheney doing in the region? What is Zinni doing in Palestine? It is certain that they came to prepare for a new strike against Iraq. But what are they doing to the Palestinians? Cheney visits Sharon, and tells Arafat to apply Tennet's peace plan and that he might meet with him some time in the future (this is humiliation within itself to Arafat). Some papers have published the peace plan of Tennet, which rules the military, and security surrender of the Palestinians. There is not even one word of political issues in this plan. Moreover I have begun to build up some convincing issues about some of the aims of Cheney's tour around the Arab states, which is not only to discuss the Iraqi issue, but also to convince the Arab states to completely abandon the Palestinians right for repatriation at the summit. My information says that some Arab states are already working on this to make it become one of the summit resolutions in Beirut. I frankly tell you that some Arab states are preparing for such an issue. Who wants to rule out the right for repatriation? Is it the Palestinians? No, the Arab states are not even convinced with it, but the Americans want this, and the people are seeking America's satisfaction, so why should they upset them. They see the fact that selling the right for repatriation is imposed by reality and rationalism, and a solution could be sought after. The American is most definitely working in this region for the interest of this Israeli entity reaching out to the stage of erasing resisting vocabulary out of the political dictionary, and recognizing the resistance as terror. I consider that this is the top of the American tyranny and ending up into being trapped by the American values. It is a time when the occupying and assaulting tyrant becomes immune, while the resistant to occupation becomes terrorist, and in some speeches Bush is saying that this terrorist should not live. He says that terrorists who are defending their rights should not be allowed to live since they spread death. Who are these terrorists? According to Mr. Bush the resistant is a terrorist and should not live. These are some of the American values, which we see. I did not add anything to your information tonight. I just did a montage by gathering this information and giving you one clear picture about the American. These are the issues that I remembered, but there must be more. We do not deny that America has a great technological and scientific development, and has a great military force, and great economy. We do not deny that there are elections in America. But in fact the voting notes, which fall, in the voting boxes are inked with the blood, and body pieces of some of the people of this world. There will soon be American elections, and in order for the Republican Party to win the elections it must cause wars, and kill some thousands of the Iraqi poor people to secure its winning. Each election must include our oil, blood, flesh, dignity, destiny, and our people. Even if their elections had some democracy than still they are filled with the smell of gunpowder, blood, money, power, and the blood of the tyrannized people of our region. If there is something important for the Americans it is the money, power, and technology. That's all. There is no other civilization, philosophy, values, ideologies, human ethics or virtues, passion or love… Where are all of these? In summary I can present you a picture of this American administration. It is a monster that is thirsty for power, thirsty for blood, and stepping over everything. This monster is like the monsters in the American movies, it takes the shape of a human who shaved his beard, put on a cravat, dressed a nice suit, and wore the nicest of the perfumes. This is the American picture that is beautiful on the outside but ugly and mean on the inside. After all of this presentation I would like to reach the following conclusion. What America has in hands today, was owned by the titans of the world previously, but each according to the requirements of his age: Greeks, Romans, Persians, Pharaohs in Egypt, and many more who had the might and money, armies and techniques; each according to their requirements. For example: the Pharaoh's civilization was of great economic elements, their techniques have included some puzzles, which are not solved yet. What I want to ask is that do you have a legal right to practice all these tyrannies on earth when you have the money and power, the armies and techniques? Are these enough to put you in control of the world forever? The Pharaoh was like this and has ended, and so others. Cesar was like this and passed away. Allah almighty says: Look to the conditions of those before thee. Today when we recognize the reality of these values and the instruction of this American existence, we can stand up and say frankly and truthfully that we may not be able to do anything, but we have a word of right that we should speak out. Today the basic source of evil and terror, the central threat for the world's peace and economy, the basic threat for even the environment of this world, the basic source for wars, killings, seductions, civil and regional wars in this world is the United States of America which is claiming that it's defending the values of civilization and freedom, and this is the truth. In return for this truth and this fact we as an Islamic and Arabic nation must have our existence, values and civilization, our culture and inheritance, our customs and habits. We must refuse this invasion, and face it with all of what we have. It's good to benefit from technology since it is necessary; it is good to learn from their developed administration if they have one since it's wanted. But we do not need to learn from the Americans any values, ethics, of culture since we have these. These are our lands, countries, and they are countries with values, ethics, basic and initial human culture and inheritance. We should never feel for even a moment that we are lacking any of these, especially when they talk to us about the American civilization and values. Our nation despite of its declines in some circumstances regarding many issues is still a better place for living. Go to all over the Arabic and Islamic countries and you will find that the society of the country in the worst situation and circumstances is still holding to its instinctive human values and ethics, and to its proper habits of dignity, honor, generosity, and human sympathy towards other's pains and sufferings. At this point I do not want to stand up and say let's declare war on the USA, let's prepare armies to invade and destroy the USA, no, this is not my aim. I would like to say yet that they are the ones, who declared war on us, and are invading and fighting our nation, its religion, culture, civilization, values, oil, water, trade, interests, existence, sovereignty, political decisions, dignity, pride and freedom. This nation should defend itself against this invasion. Here I am talking about a legitimate defense by all means, and in every field whether political, cultural, media, and social, economical or other. We can defend, resist, and preserve our nation, its dignity, religion and values, and we should do so. We must not weaken and surrender, we must work with trust. Here I wish to remind you all in this present generation at this present time in our Islamic and Arabic world that our history is full of many invasions that came to our regions. The Moguls came to our countries, destroyed, burned, killed, and butchered; but since our religion and nation are great, our nation could assimilate these Mogul attacks with its various stages. It could not defeat them militarily, but it could face them with culture, religion and thought. As a result many of the Mogul kings became Muslims and they spread Islam around the world including mid-Asia and some of the present Russian republics. They also became defenders of Islam at some stages. Another invaders were the crusaders. The many crusader armies were also faced, opposed, defeated, and expelled out of this region. Therefore we are not people without history or experience. We are not people whose region did not experience such difficulties and challenges throughout the history. Our history is rich with such challenges. Our nation was always able to prove that it can assimilate such attacks, oppose the aggressors, and expel the invaders and occupiers. This fact needed the sacrifices of men and women who had the will and readiness to sacrifice. The defeated, surrenderer, and the ones who are satisfied with sitting on their humiliated thrones are not qualified to defend this nation, its dignity and values. On the other hand there were always men and women leaders, followers, soldiers and fighters, who had the will to carry the flag or emblem, march forward and defeat the invaders and goons. This happened continuously, needed only time, and sacrifices. No one should imagine that these kinds of confrontations could be concluded within a year, two, or even ten years. It may take one or two generations. But in the end the enemy will be defeated and this nation will win. This is Allah's promise to the good and the powerless. The hands of this generation and every generation will no doubt defeat the all those like great Pharaoh, his assistant Hâmân, and their soldiers. But as I said it needs a firm stand, readiness, sacrifice, and time. From Al Hussein (A) we learn that we may have to pay a high price in order to triumph and may not live to see victory. We learn that the true sacrificing people are those who offer their bloods in order for others to live after while triumphed, with dignity and freedom. In such a manner our lord Al Hussein (p) offered himself, his children, his family, and companions in order to defend Islam, its teachings and values, which was targeted by Yazeed so that this religion could survive afterwards due to his martyrdom and after his martyrdom. He did so for this nation to keep these values and redeem its willingness, cautiousness, conscience, courage, and refuse all the humiliation by facing Yazeed and every Yazeedian* through history. This is a great lesson taught to us by our master Hussein (p). Our present generation should not accept defeat if it is unable to achieve victory. It must tolerate and confront, be firm and teach this type of culture to the generation after so that it would some how find the ability of transforming confrontation into victory. I repeat if we cannot achieve victory we should not accept defeat or surrender. This is one of the great lessons, which we learn from Al Hussein (p) in Karbalaa, and which is needed by our nation in this age. In the end I would like to thank Mr. Tennet, the CIA director who claimed in an article of the press that there is no difference between the Shiite terror and the Sunnite terror. His words are somehow asking the Sunnite and the Shiite to unite, just as I said during my first speech on the first night. As you see the Americans want the Sunnite and the Shiite to unite, and why shouldn't we? Terror to them is no longer defined as being that of Khomeini Shiite terror coming from Iran, or that of Sunnite terror coming from Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden. The subject to them is now one; it is Islam and the Quraan. They now recognize Islam and the Quraan as the religion and book of terror. This will hopefully be the final and conclusive battle, and maybe the last battle of mankind. There is nothing left to confront this autocratic American tyrant in controlling the world except Islam, the Islamic nation, the Islamic cautiousness, and the Islamic civilization. The power of Islam is inciting hundreds of millions, and changing a man into a martyrdom lover. It is also changing a woman as we've seen on TV into a mother who stands up with firmness without any trembleness in her voice to encourage her son towards offering his soul and becoming a martyr, then she becomes happy as she receives the news of his martyrdom. This means that Islam never came to people as a stranger from any part of the world. This belief, thought and ideology originated from our land here in Mecca, Medina, and lived through our generations. It is thought to be the last threat to America, and that there is nothing left beyond Islam. The Russians do not form any threat anymore they are poor. China is crippling with one step forward and one step backwards. The only thing that the Americans are looking at as being a real threat is this original Islam, they see it as a giant that shook itself and began moving, while its original aspects started to appear in the Islamic world. These are conducted studies and researches and I am not analyzing. On this occasion I would like to mention that Brigenski who used to be Carter's national security consular, has expected besides Khomeini the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition Brigenski himself said: The next century will witness the collapse of the Capitalistic Civilization of the West. People will start looking for an alternative to satisfy their bodies and spiritual needs. He added saying: the only alternative will be religion, and when people look around religions they will not find a religion that can answer all their questions except the one which was brought by a prophet named Mohammed, and that is Islam. Brigenski expected more than twenty years ago that this is going to be the century of Islam, and America is not one person who wanted to become an enemy. The story is not Bush's alone. The story includes associations that rule, centers of studies, intelligence and information, these all are included in the enemy. When America today looks at Islam as an enemy, it is because it knows according to all of its datas and information that Islam is the real opponent to its evil autocracy, which wants to control this world, especially the Islamic world. The return of the nation to its Islamic principles, and its commitment to Islam, is hopefully the good news. If things are going in this direction, then hopefully this will be the last war between belief and disbelief, between good and evil, between Islam and Satan. Therefore we have to look with hope towards the future. As I said before, from between the corpses and the smell of blood, gunpowder and rising smoke, darkness surrounding us, we should always look for a sun, which will rise in the future. This sun is our foreseen holy leader Al Mahdi (8) the son of Hassan (may Allah bring him out soon). He will come from the unknown to conclude this great battle. This is a belief we carry and every Muslim who believes in Quraan and its promise carries it as well. In the end I would like to say that each one of us should carry his responsibilities, each father and mother, man and woman, teacher and pupil, boy and girl. We are all concerned in this battle that is not the battle of governments. This is the battle of people; it's a great responsibility, which we should all carry during the next historic and destined stage. May peace be upon you my lord and master Abu Abdullah Al Hussein and the spirits that are floating around your grave. I send you my adoration as long as night follows day. I ask my dear Allah to keep me committed to continuously visit thee. May peace be upon Al Hussein, Ali ibn Al Hussein, the sons of Al Hussein, and the followers of Al Hussein. And may peace be upon you all.


8. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) complete (90 minutes)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) complete (90 minutes)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. TO VIEW OR DOWNLOAD ALL OF MY VIDEOS, PLUS 1500 PAGES OF MY EXPLANATORY ESSAYS (ALL AT NO CHARGE) PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITE: franklynwepner.com. ALSO PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH ME ANY COMMENTS ABOUT MY WORK: franklynwepner@gmail.com. IN THE LISTING OF VIDEOS THE LETTERS (HQ) REFER TO A HIGHER QUALITY VERSION OF THE VIDEO, WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO YOU IF YOUR COMPUTER CAN HANDLE IT. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


9. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 5 (HQ)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 5 (HQ)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


10. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 7 (HQ)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 7 (HQ)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


11. An Interview with Mary Wilson of the Supremes

An Interview with Mary Wilson of the Supremes

Mary: I gotta change shoes. Mary: Okay, there we go. Now, that’s so much better. Stuart: Ladies and gentlemen, obviously, let’s begin at the beginning. Normally, the protocol is that we give people a round of applause at the end of the event. In this particular case, we’re going to break with all the protocols, because I know a lot of people that are in the audience, I’ve seen faces, I’ve seen people with reputations in the audience, and I think that all of us can say, unanimously that, Mary probably doesn’t really deeply understand how much impact her singing and her reputation has had in our lives, the way it’s shaped the love that we’ve got for the music. So, ladies and gentlemen, Mary Wilson of The Supremes, come on. [applause] Stuart: So, where to start? Let’s start with a quick question. Mary, I wanted to - Mary: Well, I need to explain something. Stuart: Yes, my dear. Mary: Okay, before we go any further. I’m not the founding - the only founding member of The Supremes, as most of you know. Florence, Diane and Betty McGlown, are the founding members of The Supremes, and I cannot take that credit all myself. So, the people here in the audience understand and know that, so, let’s make that very clear. Stuart: Well, let’s start with the first question, I was watching you last night in the opening of the exhibition, singing, and sung a couple of songs for us, it was great, and one of the things that struck me is, actually, without any hesitation, I’d forgotten how great a solo singer you are, how great a singer you are. And I wonder if that actually, when we go back to The Supremes, there’s been criticisms in the past, for example, that Diana was actually the least good singer of The Supremes, she had a very specific voice. And I just wanted to get your thoughts about - just describe the different voices that were in The Supremes. Mary: Well, I don’t think that you can - anyone said that Diane was the least good singer in The Supremes, that’s not true, and I’ve never ever said anything like that. My point was always to sort of bring forward the fact that Florence Ballard was a great singer, and I was also a good singer. So, I think people - and sometimes when we tried to explain or say things like that, people think that you’re saying that the other person is not that good. That was not my point, at all. My point was saying that Florence Ballad was a Gospel, strong singer, Diane was a pop singer and I was kind of, like, the ballad singer, so, we each had our own, you know, good points. Stuart: And at a time, and in a city, which probably, without any hesitation, you could say was probably, at its time, the greatest musical city in the world, bar none. I mean, if you actually compare and contrast it with the other great regional city of the time, Liverpool, many of the Liverpool acts moved down to London and whatever, but there you were, in Detroit, touring the world, phenomenal place. Just to get some grasp on this, simply your high school alone, who did you go to school with? Mary: Well, in Detroit, we all kind of grew up in the projects. Detroit was really a small - is, a small town. And Smokey Robinson, I guess, was in the same - lived in the neighbourhood as Diana Ross. I went to high school with some of The Miracles, which was Bobby Rogers. The person that did a lot of singing - or writing, with Smokey Robinson, was Al Gutierrez, Marvin Tarplin, and he and I went to high school together. Florence went to the same high school as some of The Temptations. So, we all came from pretty much the same neighbourhood, even though it was kind of large. Stuart: And when did you first remember the sense that Mary Wilson had the desire to be a singer? Where did the desire come from? Mary: Well, you know, people like Little Richard, you know, there was Jackie Wilson, there was Frankie Lyman and The Teenagers was one of my favourite ... Stuart: He was a bad boy, though, wasn’t he? Mary: He was a what? Stuart: He was a bad boy. Mary: I don’t know, I was too young. Stuart: No, he was a very bad boy, Mary. Mary: Well, you know, doctors don’t tell secrets on other doctors. But, we all kind of bad later on. But, yeah, you know, from just - oops, we don’t want to go there right now - but, anyway, when I was born, my mother said that when the doctors spanked me, I started singing. So, I mean, I did that, but I never ever thought that it was different, I thought that everybody woke up in the morning singing. You know, I thought that everyone did that. I didn’t realise, until I became one of the members of The Primettes, that that was something very special. Then I realised that that talent was special, but, prior to that, I would just, you know, woke up and start singing, " ooooooo," you know, whatever, and just ... Stuart: And say a little bit about that photograph, because it connects you back to, like, many Detroit people of your generation, to the Southern States, doesn’t it? And to the experience of moving north to Detroit, your family and whatever. So, how big was your family? Was it a musical family? What were its origins? Mary: I actually had one of the smallest families that lived in the Brewster Projects, because my mother had - there were three of us, my baby sister, Cathy, my brother, Roosevelt, and myself, but everyone in the projects had families like, what, you know, eight, nine, ten children, so, we were kind of special, we didn’t have that many people in the family. But, you know, it’s amazing, because my mother couldn’t read nor write, and it’s something that I’ve often thought about, how music was something that we had more in our family, because we didn’t read papers, as my mother didn’t read nor write, and it was just a fun - a fun time, even though it was very, very difficult. My mum was on the welfare, you know, we got cheques every week, we got food for the government, you know, processed cheese, powdered eggs, you know, and stuff like that. But we had the music, so, we were very, very happy. Stuart: And in terms of the music itself, you talked about that music was around, what kind of music? Mary: Yes, well, you know, this was in the early days of Rock ‘n’Roll, and you had people like Chuck Berry, you know, as I mentioned, Little Richard, and when I was a teenage girl here, I remember I used to be crazy about Jackie Wilson, that was one of my favourite people. And, obviously, Frankie Lyman and The Teenagers was one of my favourites. So, I listened to Rock ‘n’Roll, that was my favourite music. However, I grew up listening to Jazz in the household, because that - Jazz and Blues, because that’s what my family more or less listened to. Stuart: And were you someone that was, in any way, as you would describe, trained as a musician? Or was it something that was just evolutionary? Mary: I remember that, when I was in about the sixth grade, maybe earlier than that, actually, I was in one of the glee clubs, and they just pulled me in there, and every year after that, I was always in some type of musical group, in school, you know, like the glee club, the choir. And when I went on to elementary school, like the eighth grade, that’s when I met Florence Ballard and started really, really singing. But I never had any formal training other than what we received at school. And we had great teachers. That’s one thing about Detroit, Michigan, the educational system was so good that we had trainers to teach us. And one teacher wanted Florence and I to be opera singers. And I remember, we would sing arias, like - [sings] [applause] Stuart: Yeah, it was really good. I’ve sure you’ve all heard it, it was the B side of Baby Love. Mary: Right, right, right. And, you know, what was really funny, is that our teacher, when we went on to high school, Mrs Br- I will never forget her, because she had Florence as the - Florence was the soprano lead singer in the girls’choir, and I was the alto singer in the girls’choir, soloist, and she would really say to us, she would say, " well, why are you going - why are you singing that music? You and that group, you guys should be doing, you know, doing opera, instead of singing all this stuff." So, anyway, years later, she would come to our concerts there in Detroit, whenever we worked there, and she would say to us, " thank God you didn’t listen to me." That’s not cool. She taught us all the basic things about music, so, we really did - but that was the only formal training that we had. Stuart: At that time in your life, as Rock ‘n’Roll was started to influence, and R ‘n’B and whatever, and you were having all these other influences from Jazz and from music at school, were you aware that music was, to some extent, still segregated, in that sense that there was a differentiation between race, was that very clear to you? Mary: Well, I don’t know about being clear, because when we were growing up, being black was just the way it was, you know, being 'coloured', which we were called in those days. That was a way of life. And you listened to - we listened to all, basically, black music, which was, you know, the Cheravons, the Joe Williams, the BB Kings, and it was basically Blues, Rhythm ‘n’ Blues, that we listened to, and we just felt that that was what everybody was listening to. However, then, when Rock ‘n’Roll came along, it sort of changed the demographics of the music in terms of what everyone was listening to, and listening to everything open. Then I started listening to people like Doris Day, you know, in fact, that’s when I became a blonde. I thought it was Doris Day, you know. Yeah, you thought Tina Turner was the first blonde, but, no, I was. Stuart: Yeah, no chance. Now, of course, this sort of thing that’s going on, was the rise in the, if you like, the kind of live music scene in Detroit, the club scene, so, take us back to some of those places that maybe you first started to grow up trying to get in, as a young teenager, The 20 Grand or The Greystone Ballroom or whatever. What was growing up as a teenager like? Mary: Well, one thing about Detroit is that it really was filled with music, and as we said earlier on, we were surrounded with music, everybody. Music was just a music town, you know, I know they say it was a car factory town, but it was really filled with music. And there was a street called Hastings, if you go into - when you go into the exhibit, you’ll see that they have something written about that. It was a strip of nothing but clubs. So, I mean, the scene was everywhere. Does anyone have a napkin? I really need one. Stuart: Yeah, could we - has anybody got a tissue or anything like that? There you are, that’s - Mary: Oh, thank you. Thank you, so much. Stuart: No, no, you need to dip - he’s getting it back, yeah, he wants it back. Mary: No, no, no, we can’t do it. Stuart: No, hey, wait, trust me, that would be framed, and if it wasn’t framed, it would be on Ebay tonight for 30 grand. Mary: Well, anyway, so, music was everywhere. And on Hastings, there was lots of clubs. So, I mean, that was something that everyone did, you know, just singing and go to clubs, we were far too young to go to clubs. But, I remember, one time, we did go to The Flame Show Bar, and all of you Motown historians out there, would remember Maurice King, who, he was a big band leader, and he was a band leader for all of the people who came through The Flame Show Bar, like Sarah Vaughan. And I remember we went there and we met Sam Cooke there, and we were too young to even be there, but..., he was very nice. But Maurice later got a job at Motown, and he was the guy that taught us all the harmonies and the things there, so, that was really cool. But there were many, many clubs. The Flame Show Bar, 20 Grand, as you’ve mentioned, The Greystone Ballroom, I remember seeing Jackie Wilson there. Oh, let me tell you a story about Jackie Wilson. There was a time when - I had him up here - oh, he was there, okay, he was there, okay, okay, we passed him, okay - anyway, but I remember, later on in life, when we became famous, well, we weren’t really big things, but we kind of, a few hit records, we were working at this theatre in Baltimore, Maryland, and Jackie Wilson was on the show, Diane’s mum was our chaperone at the time. And so she wanted to go to lunch. And, at these shows, you did, like, five or six shows per day, and you had movies in between each show. And so, Mrs Ross said one day to Jackie Wilson, she says, " Jackie, honey, would you watch the girls while I go and have lunch?" Which I’m like, " Yes! Yes!" Stuart: Yeah, one of the... - and probably one of the more romantic guys, yes, in every sense. Mary: Oh yes, that was so much fun, yes, yes. Stuart: Now, one of the other tributaries that coming along at this time is the rise, really, of, kind of, image and style, and that’s one of the things that the exhibition explores. When did you first begin to become passionate about fashion and look and visual style and the way in which you deported yourself? Mary: Well, personally, that was something that I was always involved in, and Diane was always involved in, we all liked fashion. I remember having a tea party when I was eight years old, and I dressed up in my Aunt Ivy’s clothes and got the first spanking of my life, ‘cause I destroyed her clothes in my little tea party that I was having at eight. So, I was really always into fashion, Diana was into fashion, in fact, she was taking up fashion in school and studying fashion design, and Florence, we all liked to dress up. So, when we started singing, initially, Diane and I would make some of the clothes, some of the inexpensive dresses, and then we started buying clothes from Saks Fifth Avenue, which was definitely a dream come true. And then when we became very famous, we started having the designers. So, fashion was something that we always loved. And when a Motown - or Berry Gordy, saw us, when we auditioned, I think they recognised that we really liked being pretty, and so they used that, you know. And people have this misunderstanding that Motown made us dress up and they made us look like this, and they picked our clothes. They didn’t do any of that, you know, we did it all. Of course, some of the chaperones would assist us, you know, and suggest things or whatever, but it was basically our - just the way we were. Stuart: And was that same... you were actually coached? I mean, you read all the histories of Motown, and they all talk about, you know, deportment and how to conduct yourself. Mary: The charm school ... development. Stuart: The charm school, yeah, what was the charm school really like? Mary: Well, here it is, because, you see my legs here, they’re kind of nice now, but they used to be - I mean, when thin was kind of like nothing - Stuart: Mary, I’m trying not to look, but I can see what you mean, yeah. Mary: Okay, well, but I mean, but, you know, when you’re young, you don’t know how to sit, because I’m teaching my grandchildren, my granddaughter, right now, how to sit, so, I can’t really do it - I should have on pants and then I could really do it. But, you know, girls sit like this, you know, and stuff like that. And so, in charm school, Mrs Maxine Powell, would teach us how to sit, because she said, 'one day, you girls are going to be singing before kings and queens', and we’re like, 'sure. She must be off her - what is she drinking? Right.' And so, I mean, yeah, 16, you know, and coming from where we came from. Well, of course, this was nowhere to - but she taught us how to, you know, sit, and she said, 'ladies are always supposed to sit with their knees closed, no matter how short' - you know, because minis were in, you know, 'so, your knees are always closed. And then you can cross them at the bottom, or you can sit, really, your body language is very important.' So, we were taught that at Motown by Maxine Powell when we were 16 years old. And it’s something that I think we’ve always used. I remember, we were doing the Murray The K Show in New York, and lots of people on the show, Dusty Springfield was on the show, The Ronettes. And everyone would always say, 'we could always tell all of the Motown acts when they came on, because their sort of body language, everything was really professional.' So, that was something that we got from Motown Records. Stuart: Yeah. One of the things about Motown Records that is often said is that Berry Gordy or, at least, the Motown system, borrowed a lot from Detroit and from the car plants in the sense of the division of labour, that people had a job and they did the job and they did it for high specification, and some of the tracks kept coming and were reused again. Is that the way that you saw it? Did you see this as a kind of, you know - Mary: No, we didn’t see it like that. You know, the one - another misconception that people have is that we were just taken and just totally changed over. What people have to understand is that the black experience in America at that time was very important to the black family, and we were taught, by our own families, how to be good little girls or good little boys, they would tell us, " when you go out on the street, you represent the black race, so, you must act accordingly." So, we were taught very well before we even got there. Now, the professionalism that we gained at Motown was more of teaching us the etiquette, you know, the finer things, so that we would know. But Mrs Powell put it best, and she said - she would tell us this, and it was so wonderful when she would say it, because we’d feel so good, you know, she would say, " you ladies and you guys are just diamonds in the rough, we’re here just to polish you up." And that’s really what was going on. And that was such a great compliment, because we really were - it was our decision to be there, you know, no one just said, " okay, you, you, you, we’re going to make you into stars," we were there because we wanted to be there. Stuart: You mentioned earlier on there in the conversation, " when we became really famous," you say. Mary: Well, we were always famous in our minds. Stuart: Indeed, yeah, indeed, but what was the moment, the one moment in time, that Mary Wilson personally has imprinted in her mind as the time she became really famous? What made you think, " wow, this is a bit different?" What was the moment or the time or the experience? Mary: Well, let me just add something a little bit more, for me, that was more important than that, it was when I met Florence, Diane and Betty. That’s the moment that I really knew what and who I was. Because, when I met them, it was almost like they were the other parts of me that I didn’t possess, and I loved them equally, and I saw just who I was, through them, and just singing, sort of, at that moment, I’m the same person now that I was at that moment, because of meeting them. I think had I not met Florence, Diane and Betty and, eventually, Bob, I wouldn’t be the woman that I am. So, that was, for me, more defining, as a human being, to find something in life - and I try to tell my son this, he’s still looking for himself, he’s 30 - you know, sometimes you’re not fortunate to find something that you can be passionate about in life, to make your life meaningful. And I think we were very - for me, that was the most fabulous thing that ever happened. So, the records - as I said earlier, in our mind, we were already famous, because when we found each other, we knew just who we were, what were good at. Stuart: And were you conscious of having a kind of driving ambition or whatever, because there’s so many other great singers - you’ve listed some of them - who didn’t have quite the same level of fame as The Supremes, other people who were fantastic at Motown, that just simply disappeared after maybe one or two songs or whatever. So, what was it that gave you that sense of longevity? Mary: I would say, you know, Berry Gordy taking a big interest in us and believing in us, and seeing how dedicated we were - because we were young girls, I mean, originally, he didn’t want us there, because he only saw young girls, and for him, he probably said, " you know, I don’t want these teenage girls running round my studio and getting in trouble and then I’m the blame, you know," so, he turned us down. But, after seeing that we were so dedicated and so in love with what we did, he believed in us, too, and he gave us the writing team of Holland-Dozier-Holland, and that was that defining moment, because they gave us the music. Stuart: Yeah, and all those great songs. But, before that happened, he put you on - Mary: [inaudible] Stuart: You were on this big - I’ve seen the photograph of you, on the bus, the coach, the bus that takes you all over America, and you were doing the Motown Review, probably 63, 64, something like that. What was that experience like? You know, here you are, a young black Detroit girl, in a single coach, with some pretty heavy guys, let’s be honest. Mary: Oh, it was fun. Stuart: Yeah, yeah. Mary: It was great. Stuart: Was it great? And were you always chaperoned, Mary Wilson? Mary: Yes, we were, yes, we were, we were. We were chaperoned until we were well into our 20s, we were probably 25, when we had chaperones. In fact, the first trip here, I think Diane’s mum was with us on that particular trip, and that was 64. So, we were - you know, as I said, Berry Gordy was very afraid that we would, you know, probably end up pregnant or something like that, because there was, like, all these guys running around Motown, you know, Marvin Gaye, you know, The Temptations, The Four Tops, you know, The Spinners, The Contours, it was like, " well, I’d better" - you know, so, he was pretty adamant about always having someone with us, to take care of us. Stuart: And you’re driving through areas where, in the past, where Black R ‘n’B singers or Soul singers or Jazz singers or whatever, were actually living largely in segregated lifestyles when they toured the Southern States and that, did you ever feel that you witnessed that, that you were party to that, that you could see it close up? Mary: Party to what? Stuart: Well, the segregation in the South at the time? Mary: Oh, you know, that’s a very good point, because when we were living in Detroit, you know, in your own neighbourhood - I’m sure it’s like that in most areas, that your ethnic group lives, you know, you live in one area, you know, there’s the Irish area, just whatever area it is, Italian area, the Chinese area, and all this kind of stuff. Well, we were the same way, we lived in the black area. So, you know, we didn’t have a lot of interaction with segregation, because, in our area, it was cool. And the people who had stores and things like that, who were of other ethnic groups, well, our teachers, some of them were white, some of the store owners were white, so, you know, they were all - they knew us, by names, so, we didn’t really come in contact with that. When we started travelling, yes, we did. Or, like my family was originally from the south, and I would travel down there, to the south, you know, on summers, and that’s when I would see a lot of this. So, we were well aware of what was going on, but it wasn’t so blatant. You knew, if the water fountain said " Coloured," that’s the one you drink out of, you didn’t drink out of the one that said " White." So, you just did what you were supposed to do, and it was never really a problem, you know. I remember, when my father passed, it was the year I graduated, in 61 or 62, something like that, and I had to go south to bury him, with my family, and my cousin, who lived in the south, Josephine, and I, went to buy his little socks and the gloves and all the kind of stuff, and so I was telling the guy, " I want some nice socks for my dad." So, he gave me these cheap pair of socks. So, I looked at my cousin, " oh, these are cheap, I don’t want these for my dad, give me something else, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da." And she was saying, " sh, don’t say it too loud,..., you might get hurt." And I’m like, " what? I mean, you know, I’m paying for what I want." I mean, I wasn’t being disrespectful, but it was just - the idea was, that was what I was supposed to just have, and, you know, accept it. No, my money is here, so. In those instances, you know, you knew what your parents had been telling you about, and you understood, so, when we got to the south, we understood that then, because we were young adults at that point. And it was kind of odd to perform, you know, you have to remember that Stevie Wonder, Mary Wells, Marvin Gaye, all of us were on the same bus, and we were, you know, doing these great shows, and one show, say, the black audience would be on the bottom of the floor, and the white ones would be in the balcony, and then another one, they will switch, you know. But, there is a story, on this particular bus, we were in Florida, and we were driving in, and there was a motel and there was a pool, and so we had been driving all day and was really tired and hot and everything, and we’re like, " oh, a pool, okay, great, check in there, we’re going to jump into the pool." And all the white people who were in the pool jumped out. They were like, out. And so, anyway, we didn’t care, we just come - because we were young, you know, when you’re young, you know, you’re not trying to do anything, you just want to have fun. And so there was music playing, and some of the music from the show was on there, and the people found out that we were the - Stuart: The show, yeah. Mary: The stars. They all came back in the water, we had a great day. We all just partied together, you know. So, music is one of those things, I’ve found out, that it’s really - it brings people together, it really, really does. Stuart: Now, you mentioned Holland-Dozier-Holland, now, I’ve got to ask you this, Mary, if it was reduced to - there it is, Hitsville USA - if it was reduced to one single song that you - there they are, the ten... there they are, Holland-Dozier-Holland, right? Mary: ...mini-documentary. Stuart: One single song, you’ve got to reduce it all down to one song, what’s the greatest song and why? Mary: Of Supremes, Motown, or any song? Stuart: Of Holland-Dozier-Holland for The Supremes? Mary: Oh, oh, oh. Oh, gee, that’s hard, that’s hard. Stuart: That’s hard, yeah, I know, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch, Mary. Mary: I know, I know, I know. Yeah, right, I’ve learned that. Gee, you know, I really like some of The Four Tops, their songs, " Baby, I Need Your Loving," that’s one of my all-time favourites, " Seven Rooms of Gloom," I don’t know if they did that or not. But, you know, of The Supremes’songs, gee, " Reflections" is great, " I Hear a Symphony" is great. I wasn’t as crazy about some of the earlier ones, because they were kind of young, and we wanted to be grown up, yeah, so, they were like too bubble gum, whereas, then we started doing " You Can’t Hurry Love" and things like that, and we really liked those. Stuart: Well, last night, when you came on stage, you even did that. Mary: Yeah, well, because, you know that, because people - that hand movement - Charlie Atkins, too, we had to bring Charlie up into this, Charlie Atkins was also in the Artist Development Department, and he taught everyone the moves. And that was one of the most famous moves, other than The Temptations walk... And so, you know, when I do that, it’s because almost like " The Happening," you know, the record, " The Happening," was the soundtrack to a movie, and " The Happening" record became a hit record and the movie was a flop. But, you know, we were all thrilled that we were doing a soundtrack back at that time, you know, we Supremes did a lot of firsts, you know, television specials, we had the first television special, with The Temptations, we did a lot of commercials, so, there was a lot of firsts that we did. But that hand movement was great because it is as famous as the music itself, which shows you what a combination that Motown machinery was. You know, people say, " well, don’t you hate Motown? You said this and you said this, you didn’t get paid." But that’s a whole another story, it has nothing to do with the beauty of it, that, you know, when you look back when you’re young and you see that you didn’t get as much money as you should, but, I mean, the adults, they know their stuff and, you know, you don’t know it. You’d sell your soul just to get in there and sing a song or record, so, you’re not thinking about the money. Later on, you’re thinking about it. And the fact that I brought all this up, people think that I hate Motown, but, no, I love Motown, I just think that they should have been fair. But all the record companies were doing that, you know. I spoke to some of The Drifters, and they were saying the same thing, you know, in fact, they said they were on salary, which was really bad, you know. So, anyway, the hand movement became very, very famous, yes. Stuart: Now, I want to talk a bit about the year 1967, when you were already very, very famous, and it was the beginning - you mentioned there the release of " The Happening," which I think was about February or March of that year. Mary: Was it? Oh, you know more - you remember that stuff? I don’t remember. Stuart: I complete - Mary: I don’t remember, I had to ask one of my friends, you know. I call them up and say, " Hey, Rossty, what did we make in 1965?" You know. Stuart: Well, Mary, excuse me, I’m one of these complete bores, of whom there’s thousands in the audience. Mary: Yeah, right, right, right, okay, yes. Stuart: January, 1967, it’s the new year, and I think, actually, you’d been doing the Orange Bowl in Florida, you’d been doing an icescapade or something like that, that you were doing in Florida, and you were turning back and there was snow all over the city - Mary: In Florida? Stuart: And it was the beginning - not in Florida, no, in Detroit, alright, you remember, right. No, Florida was where you dived into the pool. Mary: I’m 64, I’m not senile. Quit . . . Stuart: Okay, right, snow on the ground, Florence Ballard is beginning to - something’s happening in The Supremes, what was happening? Give us your truthful version of what actually was happening. Mary: Well, you know, if you really want the real true story, you’ve got to read my book. Stuart: I’ve read both versions. Mary: I know it’s not here in the VA, but maybe you can tell they should get it here, okay. Alright, this is the real story, and I really wrote about that, about Florence, in depth. It’s a very long story to explain it all, and perhaps I can just do it quickly, just so everybody really understands. You know, Florence was abused when she was very young. We were in the Pr- as well, during the time, and the young man who did this, I think he was caught and put in prison. But, she was a virgin, and was raped. So, then, of course, we got to deal with Motown and we became famous and all these kind of things, and I think that Diane and I really felt that, you know, she was over this, and we didn’t know the depth, because we were very young at the time, we just didn’t understand it. But it totally destroyed Florence. I mean, she was distraught at that point. Thank God, we still had our - you know, we had our fame and all that stuff and, as I said, we really felt that she was okay, but she wasn’t. So, eventually, it came - and she never got help, because during that time, unlike now, people are helping children who are abused, and they really, you know, you go therapy and you do all these things, but, in those days, you didn’t do that, you kept quiet. Stuart: You just closed it off, yeah. Mary: You kept quiet, you didn’t want people to know, no one - you know, so, you didn’t get the help that you should, and that’s what happened to Florence. She didn’t get the professional help to help her get rid of some of these things. So, whenever anything would go wrong, then she would get unhappy and then, of course, she would get more and more unhappy. And, you know, you start drinking to cover up the pain. So, people were saying that she was drinking too much, but she was just hurting. And eventually, it got to the point where she was unable to really do her job well. And that’s basically what happened to her. So, she was put out of the group, I mean, she didn’t just leave. But, and I try to say this in all fairness to everyone, there are many times you hurt yourself when you’re in pain, and so that’s kind of what happened to her. It was very, very, very hard to look at, as a friend. It was very, very difficult for me. It probably destroyed me, as well, in many ways. I mean, I learned a lot, I grew up. Seeing a friend in pain is so horrible. So, even now, you know, I think that friends need to help friends. You know, if you see that they’ve been doing something, really try to get them to get professional help. Stuart: And during that period, so many myths were built up about Motown, about the break-up of The Supremes or, at least, Florence leaving The Supremes and that, what’s the thing that you think is now commonly said about Motown or about The Supremes that just simply is wrong? What’s the common - Mary: Well, I don’t know so much about Motown, but I’ll tell you the one thing that’s very wrong, is when people don’t understand how much Flo, Diane and I, love each other, always. Florence went to her grave loving Diane so much, and never really, you know, saying anything. And Diane loved Florence, very, very much. And I love Diane and Diane loves me. The business and all these things, and money, fame, has destroyed a lot of people, it really has, their relationships, because it’s just - anyway, that’s one of the things that I would really like, people to understand how much we loved each other. And that’s why when the young lady introduced me as the founding member, it’s like, I can’t take that - Stuart: Credit, yeah. Mary: Yeah, it’s all three of us, we were totally, totally equal in that. Stuart: And if we move a bit forward, in the year 1967, that’s also the year of the riots in Detroit. Mary: I thought it was 68. Stuart: 67, yeah. Mary: He knows everything. Stuart: And 43 people dead. Mary: What! 43! My God! What if I knew - Stuart: Well, where, Mary Wilson, were you? Mary: What? Stuart: Where were you? Because your folks were in Detroit but you were in Las Vegas, I think, weren’t you? Mary: No, no, oh, no, no, no, I was there. I saw sofas going past my window. That’s an inside joke. But, anyway, [laughs], anyway, no, I was actually at home at that point, and directly after that, is when I decided to move to the West Coast. Because we had been doing television shows and our television specials and everything on the West Coast, and falling in love with it, because the weather was, as you mentioned, it’s cold in Detroit, and the weather out there was nice. And I had decided to move out there. And when the riots happened, I just said, " okay, I’m going." Stuart: And when you look back to those days, the city was torn apart and all the rest of it, maybe actually tore the heart out of the city for that period of time and whatever, do you know, when you look back to those days now, I think it was the house you bought, Buena Vista, they say? Mary: Sure, yes, Buena Vista. Stuart: Buena Vista, and I think all three members of The Supremes bought their first house - Mary: On that street, without knowing it. Without knowing it, we all ended up having a house there on the same street. Stuart: Did you stay there? Mary: We were like, " God, I was trying to get rid of them." But, no, but, I mean, that was really kind of odd, when we found out, because we were actually over here touring, and couldn’t look for homes, so, we had, you know, the people buying homes, and when we got back to Detroit, we looked at all these different houses they had found for us, and each of us chose our own house, without knowing, and then we realised it was on the same street. It was very odd, very odd. Stuart: And did you sell it when you moved to Los Angeles? Mary: No, I kept the house for years, yes, until I finally realised it wasn’t going to get any better, because after the riots, as you said, it had really just destroyed the city. But, you know, the riots can’t take full credit for the city dying. The reason for the riots, one of them was, you know, people didn’t have any work, you know, the factories had been closing down, so, it was a lot of different reasons. Stuart: Now, the other bizarre thing about 1967, I was looking, statistically, it was the year when the most young Detroiters died in Vietnam, and young people dying in Vietnam that year. Your brother, I think, was in Vietnam. Mary: My brother was in Vietnam, and he said, the things he had to do in the service, he was so embarrassed, he was never the same, he had no idea. I think it destroyed a lot of people’s lives, who are still walking around today, because of that. War is a horrible thing. Stuart: Yeah, and The Supremes, you went to - you didn’t sing in Vietnam but I think you went to American forces - Mary: Okinawa. Stuart: Okinawa, yeah, tell us a bit about that. Mary: Well, we were on tour, and we went to Manila, did all the Air Force bases and things like that, you know, performing for the guys and girls over there. And then we also, as you said, we were diverted from Vietnam because they said they couldn’t protect us and they didn’t want us to go there, so, we were diverted to Okinawa and other places. And then, when we came back, we went to the hospital for the vets in Washington, DC. Anybody knows which one? I can’t right now think of it. Stuart: That would be the Walter Reed in Philadelphia. Mary: Walter Reed, yes, and that’s where we saw some sights that would just destroy you. You know, young men, 90% burned, you know, it was just really horrible. And I really understood the tragedy of war on the human life. And, as I said, my brother’s never been the same since he came out of Vietnam. He’s still trying to get his life back together. So, ... Stuart: Although it came much later, the soundtrack, obviously, to that year, was Marvin Gaye’s " What’s Going On?" Mary: Yes, it was. Stuart: Tell us a wee bit about Marvin Gaye. Mary: He was fine. All the girls loved Marvin Gaye. Whooo. Oh, he was - but, more than that, he was a gentle human being, very, very gentle. He was the kind of person that, if you were around him, you felt that you were in the presence of an angel, you know, he was that kind of - his soul was like that. I know that people say a lot of things about him, you know, drugs later in life, and all that stuff, but, from his music, you can tell that he was a very deep, kind of caring person, and I think that’s why he was unable to really cope with life, because there was so much going on, that he couldn’t control and couldn’t understand it, and so he was in pain a lot, you know, for whatever reason other than that. But, yeah, he was a great person, but he also was very talented, you know. A lot of people don’t know that he played the drums on The Marvelettes song, " Please, Mr Postman," he was a great pianist. He couldn’t dance, though. And, you know, they say all black people can dance, it’s not true. Stuart: It’s not true. Mary: But, I remember that, we, The Supremes, were jealous of Martha and The Vandellas because they had the opportunity to sing background with him, and we didn’t. Well, we actually did, we did " Can I Get a Witness?" with him, and I think there was another one we did. Howard Kramer from Rock ‘n’Roll Hall of Fame. [inaudible] Mary: I know we did " Can I Get a Witness?" , we did the background for that one. I got one that they don’t know. Stuart: Yeah, that was a good one, yeah. Now - Mary: But he was a wonderful, talented, talented man. Stuart: Now, of course, another towering influence, you mentioned him earlier, is Berry Gordy himself. Mary: Sure. Stuart: I wanted to kind of go back a bit in time, back to the Gordy family, because they’re actually quite a remarkable family, when you think about it, the sisters, I think they had the fashion photographic franchise for the Flame Show Bar, they had businesses all over Detroit, I mean, this was actually quite a significant family in the black community. Mary: Well, you know, people say that like it’s something special, and it is something special, but there are many, many, many families like that. Fortunately for Berry Gordy was that he, you know, started Motown, and that gave him more prominence and more visibility than a lot of black families who are really doing things like that. Everyone can’t become as famous as Mr Gordy did. But his family was, perhaps, responsible for, you know, helping him, giving him the idea that he could, you know, pursue his dream, and they did loan him the money to start Motown. Everybody in the family was very progressive in terms of their work and what they did, and just constantly doing things. So, you know, it paid off, it really paid off. But I really think that the family foundation, as I mentioned earlier, in the black family, was much more structured than people really assumed. And sometimes I become very, very upset when people say, " well, how did it feel being black and poor?" It’s like, you know, " I was happy." So, we had a lot of good roots in the black community. Stuart: What would Gordy’s real skill be? If you were to describe what it was that he brought, apart from owning the company, obviously, what was the skill? Mary: Well, he’s Sagittarian, so he has his great skill of organising people. He knows what people are good at and what they’re not good at, and I think that’s his forte. He was able to - because he gets a lot of credit for things that were not his idea, but the credit should be that he knows what each person is good at, and he gets that out of them. So, that’s his - even though it wasn’t his idea, he knew that that person could do that job. And so I would say that’s his biggest credit. But, also, you know, he was a great songwriter. He did a lot of songs for Jackie Wilson and all that. And also he overseed all of the music that came out of Motown. So, even though Holland-Dozier-Holland or Smokey Robinson or Norman Whitfield or Mickey Stevenson were the writers and producers, it would still have to pass through Berry, and he could tell each one - well, we never knew if he would say something was wrong with it and change it, just so he could have his name on it. [laughs] Or, if it really made the song better. But, obviously, they were all number one, so it must have made it better. But, that’s his, I would say, his forte. Stuart: And going back to 67, at the beginning of the year, Mickey Stevenson left, at the end of the year, I think Holland-Dozier-Holland left, Berry Gordy wasn’t that great at keeping people, was he? Mary: No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. Stuart: Oh, you disagree? Mary: No, no, I disagree. I think that it was at a time when we were growing up. And, you know, Berry started, as you said, with the family structure, and he was the controller, he was a ruler, he knew everything. But when children grow up, and they know become, you know, masters at the trade, then they want to negotiate. And Berry’s the kind of person that, you know, he only wants to negotiate on his terms and, you know, whoever has children out there, you realise sometimes that children are like that, you know, they get up and they say, " well, no, this is what I want." And if you’re too - if you’re unpliable and unflexible, sometimes the children will rebel, or whatever, against you, and that’s kind of happened. So, it’s not that he’s - because we all still love him, and we all go back to him, you know, as you can tell by the Motown 25th, things like that. And we’re wondering if they don’t have a Motown 50th, but no one’s called me. Stuart: We all look back, and it’s so easy to look back with hindsight and be smart after the event or whatever, but one of the things that did happen is that, in the end, artists started to challenge, across all, not just at Motown, across the music industry generally, about rights ownership, about who wrote songs, about the value of their contribution and whatever, give us your personal perspective on that, on looking back now, from 2008, to the era of the 60s where you were the singer. Mary: Well, I think I really just answered it. I mean, people grow up and they change their minds. I mean, take the example of Marvin Gaye, who, you know, originally was an artist and then he wanted to write his own material, and that was really something that artists didn’t do at Motown, you left that to the people who did that best. And, you know, he decided, " no, I’ve got to do this, I must do this." So, that was happening a lot, I mean, that was what was going on, people were deciding what they now wanted to do with their lives. Especially since you’re a star now, you know, you say, " okay, I want to do this." And so, you know, it was a time after the riots and all, the world was changing. We had a nice time of people progressing and then, all of a sudden, the world was opening up, things were changing, and that was what was going on, and that’s what happened to Motown, when they moved to the West Coast. And it was the day of the 60s was kind of like, over. And that’s when Diane left the group. When we started travelling all over the world - I’ve got to just bring this up, I want to mention, too. Here, this is Princess Margaret there, on the screen. And we were doing all these great things. You know, we were on the Ed Sullivan Show more than any other artist, except that puppet, Topo Gigio. Stuart: Yeah, he’s good, I liked him. Mary: And sometimes I think that Ed Sullivan thought I was Diane, because he always came over and shook my hand. Here we are with Sonny Cher, Sammy Davis, The Lovin’Spoonful, we toured with them, they were, like, really strange. One of our favourite groups, The Andrews Sisters, on the Sammy Davis Show. Stuart: No, that’s Tarzan, isn’t it? That’s Tarzan. Why the hell were you playing nuns in Tarzan? Mary: Because we were good girls. Stuart: Oh, come on, you’ve been on tour with Jackie Wilson, you are not a nun. Mary: And that was really cool, we enjoyed that, too, we had a great time filming that. And this was the first television special - bless you - that I was telling you about. These girls are in the exhibit, they were made by Bob Mackey. This was over here at The Talk of the Town, what year was it, Stuart? Stuart: Oh, I don’t know, I don’t do The Beatles, not interested. Mary: You don’t do The Beatles. It’s like 1968, because Cindy is in there, that’s how I know, see. But that was at The Talk of the Town. Satchmo was one of the - I always said, we’ve got to take... - anyway, this bread wrapper. Stuart: Yeah, the bread wrapper, I like the bread, that’s good. Mary: White bread, Supremes white bread, okay, and we got so much flack from the NWACP for endorsing white bread. It was still the 60s, you see. And so we would tell people that, well, that was the only kind of bread that everybody ate. I mean, they didn’t have like, today, you’ve got every colour of bread you want, wheat, rye, I don’t know. Then they only ate white bread, you know. So, anyway, that was ours. And we endorsed Coca-Cola. We were really the first pop group to start endorsing commercial products. So, we endorsed white bread, Coca-Cola, and we also had Arid underarm - I don’t have that one here - underarm deodorant, we endorsed that. We had our own wig line. And then, of course, comes my books, but we’re not up to that point, let’s go back, okay. Stuart: I just want to ask you - time’s rushing ahead. Mary:I know, we’ve got to move on. Stuart: And I’ve got to go to the audience in a bit, but just before we do that, when you look back, and you were talking there about the period, do you ever look back, " Je Ne Regret Rien" the song says, do you ever look back and say, " I regret," is there something you’d change? Mary: The regret that I would have is that I wasn’t as wise as I am now. But, you know, when you’re young, you’re foolish, you’re young, you’re foolish, and I was certainly that. But I enjoyed my life a lot. And I think that had I been a bit wiser, I would have made a few different choices. Probably would have helped Florence a little bit more, probably would have asked for a little bit more money, probably would have gotten the name of The Supremes, which I did get 50% of ownership of that name. But, you know, just things like that. But I don’t have what you might call real regrets. I may have made some silly stupid mistakes along the way, but I don’t really have any major regrets, so, I’m very, very happy about that. Of course, here, we were inducted into the Rock ‘n’Roll Hall of Fame. Stuart: Yes, indeed. Mary: Mr Howard Kramer will know, he’s here representing the Rock ‘n’Roll Hall of Fame. Stand up, let everybody see you. Stuart: Yeah, go on, there he is, there he is, absolutely. [applause] Mary: Howard came to my house and looked at all my boxes and trunks with the gowns, so, he was the first person who actually saw them, while they were - yeah, right. So, thank God, I did that. So, this was a great moment here. The only sad moment about this was that I was the only one there, Diane wasn’t there, Florence wasn’t there, so, it was one of those hollow kind of moments of just - I was thoroughly happy, but I was sharing with just myself, and I wanted to so much share it with the other ladies, our success, you know, say that our dreams really did come true. So, we travelled all over the world, we were on that show, at the B- , The Beach Boys, and I think The Drifters was there. We have a star in Hollywood Boulevard, if you ever get to Hollywood, go down La Braer and Rodale, you can walk all over us. And so, that’s it. Stuart: That’s the story, it’s a great story, as well. Ladies and gentlemen, Mary Wilson. We’re going to come to questions. [applause] Stuart: Mary has to rush in ten minutes, she’s going to do the Jools Holland Show, so, at last, you get some licence fee value. It’s going to be recorded on the telly. Questions, gentleman there and then there, please. Question: Hi, Mary. Could I just ask you about Jean Tyrell? Jean Tyrell was brought in after Diana Ross left the group, and my understanding is that she left because she became very dissatisfied with the way that Motown was treating The Supremes. Why do you think Motown did change its attitude towards The Supremes in the 70s? And why did the group eventually disband? Mary: I don’t really, really know, but Jean wasn’t the only dissatisfied, we all were dissatisfied. It just so happens that they could walk away, Jean and Linda could walk away, because they didn’t have a stake in the group the way I had a stake in it. So, even though I was unhappy about the treatment we were receiving at the time, I couldn’t walk away and leave them in The Supremes, I would not do that, and they did walk away and leave. And that’s one of the reasons why, many times, I’m unhappy when they come back and take over the group and tour as The Supremes, because they actually left it and did not help it, so, I’m not very happy about that, and I will never be happy about that. I hope that God will help me to get over it, but it’s something that I just feel very, very bad about. Motown, for some reason, at the time that Stuart was talking about, was making that move and things were changing, and they just weren’t interested in us. And they probably didn’t have the belief. Jean is a great singer, she did a great job, she gave us some of our greatest songs. And it should have, you know, worked, with her doing it. It wasn’t her fault, it was just the machinery was not behind us. Stuart: And you would never want to fight her brother, would you? Mary: No, right. Stuart: There’s another question there. Question: I’d just like to say, thank you, Mary. I’ve followed you for many, many years in your solo career, and the last time I saw you was last summer, in Lake Taho. Mary: In Lake Taho, yes. Question: And I’m sure, as many people here do, through good times and bad times, The Supremes have always been there for me, thank you. Mary: Thank you. Question: But, as this gentleman was saying, I’ve got the whole collection, but technically, I think the combination of Cindy Birdsong and Jean Tyrell and yourself are definitely the best, technically, Supremes, to see. Mary: Oh, thank you. Well, I appreciate that. My take on that - because a lot of people want to hear how I felt about that group - I loved all of us, but each one was different. The Jean Tyrell, Cindy Birdsong and Mary Wilson, we were the 70s Supreme, we were not the hit-making Supremes, okay, we were another group. And I want people to be very clear of why I defend the original group against the 70s group, because we made the history. In the 70s, we were great, but we were another group. Stuart: There’s a gentleman here who has a question. Yes, sir, with the blue shirt on here. Can we take a microphone here? It’s just passing over. Yes, sir. Question: [inaudible] Mary: 64 Question: I was wondering whether or not there would ever be a chance that you and Diana would get back together for a reunion tour. Mary: Well, certainly, there’s an opportunity, but, you know, Diana’s got to want to do that and, at the present time, she really doesn’t want to do it. So, you know, I’m of the thinking that it’s best, if she doesn’t want to do it, we can’t do it unless we all want to do it. Question: There’s still a future... Mary:Oh sure, I mean, I think there’s a chance, and I’ll be there to do it, you know, yeah, but she’s got to want to do it. I can’t make her, no one can make her, until she gets ready. Stuart: Could you pass the microphone to the gentleman there. Yes, sir. Mary: Hi. Question: I think you’ve got a new album coming out? Mary: Yes, I have a new CD that’s due out later this year, and it’s with the company of the Holland brothers, and their company is producing me. I’ve already recorded probably 90% of the album, it should be out later this year. In fact, we’re speaking to a company here, Vibrant, here, in the UK, that may be the company to release it here. Stuart: Reasonably priced, Mary? Mary:Well, I don’t know. Stuart: I’m sure there’ll be a lot of people want to buy it. Just right behind you, sir, there’s a gentleman there. Question: Hi, Mary, I came in from San Francisco to see you. Mary: Hey, yeah, well, you saw the Jazz show there, yes? Question: I didn’t get to it, I’m so sorry, I didn’t get to it. Hopefully, maybe, next time you’re back. I wasn’t living in the city at the time. But I just want to say, I’ve been a fan since the 60s, and I can remember being a little white boy in Gary, Indiana, buying your album, and I had to put the cover down because the other white people would look at me, and how much that changed my life. Stuart: You said in Gary, Indiana? Question: Yes, the Jackson 5. I didn’t know them. I was just wondering, I loved the exhibit, it was beautiful, I wonder, do you think Diana Ross will get a chance to see it when she’s here, supposedly? Mary: Well, I mean, certainly, she may be, because she’s going to be working in Liverpool, I understand, and I’m sure she’ll sneak in. She’ll probably have her big glasses and a wig. Question: It’s such a tribute to all of you. Thank you. Stuart: Yes, there’s a gentleman over here in the blue shirt. We’ve already had, I think, Lake Taho in San Francisco, can you upstage this? Question: No, a much more shallow question. The show’s all about your clothes, and I’d like you to tell us about your favourite outfit you’ve ever worn. Stuart: Yes, Mary Wilson, we’d like to know, throughout the whole period of your singing stardom, the one outfit that you love. Mary: Oh, you know, it changes all the time, it really does. Since I’m here in London, I like the pink beaded, the ones that we wore for our command performance with the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, Princess Anne. So, in fact, they’ve always been some of my favourite gowns, because they weigh maybe 35 pounds each, and they’re all heavily beaded with rhinestone pearls, you know, ...everything. So, they’re like the top. Stuart: And that one you were wearing there, with the shoulderless - Mary: Which one? Stuart: The very nice one there, the last one we saw. I like the dress you’re nearly wearing. Now, look, Mary, we’ve got to get a bit serious here. If you were to move into another genre of music, would you have liked to have actually pursued a different - let’s go back, this idea that you started this session today singing an aria, singing an opera, would you like to have done classical music or opera or some other form of non-popular music? Mary: [sings] " No complaints, no regrets, I still believe in chasing dreams, and placing bets. But I have learned that all you give is all you get, so give it all you got. I’ve had my share, and I drank my fill, and even though I’m satisfied, I’m hungry still" - I can’t get that off - " to see what’s down another road, beyond the hill, and do it all again. So, here’s to life, and every joy it brings. So, here’s to life, to dreamers and their dreams. Funny how the time just flies, a love can go from warm hellos to sad goodbyes, and leave you with the memories you’ve left behind, to keep your winters warm. For there’s no yes in yesterday, and who knows what tomorrow brings, what takes away, as long as I’m still in the game, I want to play, the last, the life, the love. So, here’s to life, and every joy it brings. So, here’s to life, to dreamers and their dreams. May all your storms be weathered, and all, all that’s good get better. Here’s to life, here’s to love, here’s to you." [applause] Stuart: Superb, fantastic. Ladies and gentlemen, the wonderful Mary Wilson. Mary: Gotta go. Okay. Stuart: We’ll let you go. Mary: I’ve got to go. Stuart: You’ve got to go, babe. Lovely to see you. Take care, all the best. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Mary: Okay, and I did, too. Alright, my lashes are coming out. Stuart: All the best. And we’ll see you later. Take care, honey. All the best, all the best, yeah, cheers. Mary: Bye bye. My lash is coming off.


12. Baldur (roleplay)

Baldur (roleplay)

For my role-play character Baldur within the marvel/Thor/myth verses. This is purely made for fun and no profit is made from this. Song: Buried Beneath by Red. Face: Will Sanderson. Clips: In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. Story: Baldur is the patron god of light, wisdom, innocence, purity, beauty and justice. The third born son of Odin and Frigga, believed by many that light emanates from within his very being. He is one of the most loved of the Aesir. He resides in the Breidablick territory of Asgard and not within the golden palace itself. Though he is not as old as many of the other Aesir he has partaken in a number of trials including the raid on Svartalheim during the war with the dark elves to rescue a number of Aesir citizens who had been taken captive. Among those Aesir was Nanna and her younger sister. He saved Nanna from the mines beneath the surface of Svartalheim and took her as his wife not long after their return to the safety of Asgard. At other times he has aided his brother Thor against enemies such as Skagg the Storm Giant and the demon Surtur. Baldur, since childhood, has been plagued by terrible nightmares that he could not decipher of which he has even traveled to the realm of Niflheim to speak with a Seidre woman (shaman) who spoke of his nightmares foretelling his own death. Deeply disturbed by such news, his mother Frigga cast magic upon her youngest son to which no harm could come of him by any living thing. He has been the subject of much trouble with the Nornheim Queen, Karnilla. A sorceress who pitted him against the Legion of the Lost when he spurned her advances. It is through Karnilla that Baldur lost his wife when she released a Snow Giant to battle Thor after abducting them in order to try and force his hand into marriage, an act of which he will never forget. He mourns the loss of his wife greatly and visits the realm of Valhalla to see her spirit frequently, still blaming himself for her death. Baldur has been made the steward king of Asgard with Thor visiting Midgard, a duty of which he does not wish for.


13. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 6 (HQ)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 6 (HQ)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


14. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 1 (HQ)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 1 (HQ)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


15. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 3 (HQ)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 3 (HQ)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


16. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 4 (HQ)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 4 (HQ)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


17. Muller, Ian

Muller, Ian

DANVILLE — Cpl. Ian M. Muller was made to be a Marine. The 22-year-old North Danville resident, who was killed in combat Friday in Afghanistan, wanted to make a difference in the world. “Ian was a good fit for the Marines, and they were a good fit for him. I can’t imagine him as anything else,” said his oldest brother, Ryan Muller. Muller’s father, Clif, said his son was a “smart, strong young individual.”
He said his son joined the Marines about four years ago. “A lot of that was because of the economy,” said Clif Muller, a Realtor. “He looked for work around here but couldn’t find consistent work.” Ian Muller chose the Marines “because it was the hardest one to get into,” the elder Muller said in a brief interview outside his home Monday, the day the Defense Department made public the news of Cpl. Muller’s death. The family’s large yellow farmhouse sits on a hill with expansive views of the countryside and New Hampshire’s White Mountains. An American flag hung at the front of the house. When it came to picking a branch for military service, the Marines were Ian Muller’s top choice. “He saw them as the toughest, smallest and most elite,” Ryan Muller said. “He approached things with gusto.” The Defense Department said Muller was killed in combat in Afghanistan’s volatile Helmand province. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force out of Camp Lejeune, N.C. Muller is the 39th person from Vermont or with close ties to the state to be killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003, according to a Burlington Free Press list of casualties. A 40th soldier died of natural causes while deployed in Kuwait. Ian Muller, like his five brothers and one sister, mostly was home-schooled. Their mother, Susanne, stayed home and helped raise and teach the children. “Ian played soccer at Danville (High). He loved sports and snowboarding and skiing,” Ryan Muller said. “He always approached things with a certain aggressiveness.” “He loved extreme sports,” Clif Muller said. Ian Muller took private art lessons and seemed to find a niche. He attend Lyndon State College to study graphic design for about a year, his brother said.
“He was not meant for book learning,” Muller said. He tried construction, but the economy went south. Ian Muller, who was into bodybuilding and physical excellence, felt drawn to the Marines. Ian Muller and his neighbor David Trudeau enlisted together, Ryan Muller said. “David is flying back this week,” said Ryan Muller, who is married to Trudeau’s sister, Rita. Funeral arrangements are being finalized. The family traveled to Dover, Del., this the weekend to be there as Cpl. Muller’s coffin arrived, Ryan Muller said. “It has been trying,” he said. Ryan Muller is the oldest of the family’s children, followed by Dylan, Ian, Benjamin, Quinton and the twins, Ruben and Madeleine. Fourteen years separate the oldest and youngest sibling. State Sen. Jane Kitchel and her sister, Rep. Kitty Toll of Danville, said they expect the Vermont Legislature will pay tribute to Muller with a resolution honoring his service to the country. Kitchel said the Muller family was well known for friendly children and for providing wonderful baked goods, such as bread and pretzels. Kitchel said the Danville-Walden area has been affected deeply by the recent wars, with four military deaths and at least one solider injured by friendly fire. “This community has been hit very hard, not just Danville,” Kitty Toll said.

Former longtime state legislator Roy Vance of Danville said he was disappointed to hear of Muller’s death. “It’s sad,” said Vance, who said he had met the family in the course of his travels in town. “I’ve stopped and talked to the parents,” said Vance, now an assistant judge in Caledonia County. “They are awfully nice.” Vermont Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin called the Muller family Monday afternoon and “expressed his sincere sympathy” on behalf of the state, spokeswoman Sue Allen told the Burlington Free Press. The private call lasted about five minutes, she said. Shumlin also issued a public statement saying his heart went out to Muller’s family and friends. “I am deeply proud of our troops here and abroad protecting for our freedom. Vermont is a community, and as a state we send our sympathy to Danville and everyone who knew and cared for Cpl. Muller,” Shumlin said. The three members of Vermont’s congressional delegation issued statements of condolence Monday. “Our deepest sympathies are with his family, friends and other loved ones,” Sen. Patrick Leahy said. “What a difficult time this is for them. All Vermonters, and all Americans, grieve at the loss of another of our finest.” Sen. Bernie Sanders said Muller’s “service and sacrifice will never be forgotten by a grateful nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and his fellow Marines during this time of grief.”

Said Rep. Peter Welch: “This loss is truly heartbreaking — for his


18. TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 2 (HQ)

TALKING TO GOD (HITBOD'DUT) part 2 (HQ)

Breslav Hassidim and Franciscan Catholics are told to talk to God in the woods. Gestalt Therapy provides us with many tools to help us get past our own ego trips and really speak to God. Part 1 of this project shows us "dumb hitbod'dut", all the wrong things to do, while parts 2-7 of this project attempt to demonstrate some of the right things to do to be more successful if and when you do talk to God. "HITBOD'DUT" CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. H A LOWBROW, SLIGHTLY IRREVERENT INTRODUCTION TO BRESLAV THEOLOGY by franklyn wepner december 2008 franklynwepner@gmail.com PREFACE (a) ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF THIS EXPERIMENT The teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, as embodied in today's Breslav Hassidic sect of Judaism embody a form of what traditionally goes by the name of "Pietism". Pietism emphasizes faith and simplicity over against complex intellectual explanations of religious matters. But from the day that the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, sought God by talking to Him in the woods and jumping back and forth from one side of a stream to the other, until the day Nachman published his collected essays, "Likutei Moharan", much water in the stream of Jewish Pietism has passed under the bridge. That is to say, Likutei Moharan is not simple stuff. In order to write what he writes in those pages, Rabbi Nachman had to be well versed in the complex tradition of Pietist religion. Whether he got it from the original sources or from other compilations, he had to know something about the Neoplatonism of Philo, Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevy , Abu-l-Barakat and Leone Ebreo. He had to know something about the responses of Hasdai Crescas to the Aristotelian Jewish tradition which crystallized in Maimonides "Guide For The Perplexed". To these two traditions, Nachman of Breslav added a strong emphasis upon the philosophy of language, in the sense that the Word of God is coming to us from a Jewish God who in a profound mystical sense is a speaking God, speaking to us and speaking through us. Though it is hard to find precedents to this in Judaism, we can find it in the work of the Christian theologian Johann Georg Hamann, which appeared, shortly before the time Nachman was born, in Konigsberg, East Prussia, not far from where Nachman lived in Eastern Europe. In the work of Hamann we find much of the philosophy of language which Nachman incorporated into his teachings. In other words, since the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav are so saturated with the complex tradition of Pietism, they are anything but a return to the naivete of the Bal Shem Tov. In this respect Nachman is deliberately deceptive when he tells his disciples again and again to keep it simple, and rely mainly on prayer. But he also tells them to study! So he is not preaching mindlessness. Nor is he teaching blind following. His elevation of "the tsaddik of the generation" to the level of highest authority in the community of Hassidim is to be read both in the literal, "pshat", sense, and also in the profoundest philosophical sense as the Moses-Mashiach element potentially available in every person who submits himself to the theological process outlined in Likutei Moharan. Traditionally in Judaism it is said that each Jew shares in the living reality of Moses receiving the Torah on Mt. Sinai, but for Nachman this notion is merely the tip of an iceberg which is available to those who take the trouble to fathom the ideas of Likutei Moharan. In view of these elements contained in Nachman's teachings, it should not be surprising that in what follows here I discover profundity rather than naivete in Nachman's advice to his disciples that they ought to sequester themselves every day and talk directly to God. Of course, we can talk naively to God in the manner of Tevye in Fiddler On the Roof. That procedure here I label "dumb hitbod'dut". Dumb hitbod'dut in that sense is in most cases better than no hitbod'dut at all. It can't hurt, and it might even be more useful than talking to oneself. But I am after bigger fish than that. My goal here is to begin to apply the principles of Likutei Moharan itself to the process of hitbod'dut. This introduction is not the place to spell out the complex principles of Likutei Moharan. You will find some of that in the sequel. Here I will just outline my basic assmptions for this project, which are that (i) Since Neoplatonism and Hamann's philosophy of language are examples of dialectical thinking, therefore Likutei Moharan likewise is dialectical thinking. (ii) Gestalt Therapy also is dialectical thinking, containing both Platonic and Aristotelian aspects. (iii) Therefore, applying dialectical thinking and Gestalt Therapy principles to hitbod'dut is entirely appropriate. (iv) Hitbod'dut divested of the Gestalt Thrapy list of "self-interruptions" that rob our actions of their potential for authenticity and effectiveness is better than hitbod'dut saturated with this nonsense. The list of self-interruptions includes, beginning with the most pernicious, (a) confluence, (b) introjection, (c) projection, (d) retroflection, and (e) egotism. I will present these problems, one after the other, and then I will go on and attempt to demonstrate that smart hitbod'dut is better than dumb hitbod'dut. (b) ON THE STYLE OF THIS PRESENTATION That is the rationale for this project. Now a few words about the style of this project. It is, first of all, an experiment. I never saw it done before, but I decided to try to do it anyway. I state at the beginning that it might not work. As a matter of fact, I believe that it did work. I believe it worked very well, but you might not agree. That is for you to decide. Being an experiment, it had a hypothesis and a procedure. The hypothesis I just explained above. The procedure was simply to do my own personal hitbod'dut work, talking to Mr. H (Hashem, Hebrew: The Name, i.e., God), on tape as a here and now spontaneous improvisation, with you looking on as the audience. If you have access to that CD I hope you will invest the 2 hours or so it takes to listen to it. If you do so, you will discover that this written version has been edited to make it more coherent and more readable. Also, I have taken the liberty of correcting certain blunders. But on the other hand, I purposely retained the style of a here and now spontaneous improvisation. You should know that the "actor" of that theatrical event is not such a nice guy as the erudite elderly gentleman who, with the wisdom of hindsight and in the manner of cool reflection, is writing this introduction. That actor doesn't mind insulting his audience if he feels - perhaps mistakenly - that by doing so he can better get his point across. But he has asked me to beg you please not to take it personally! It is merely poetic license. And after all, he is doing therapy up there, working on his existence. He is just exploring the range of expression available to him there and then (here and now) in his studio or up on his favorite hitbod'dut hill in Yavniel, Israel, which - by the way - is about 5 miles west of the sea of Galilee, in the vicinity of the city of Tiberias. It is Chanuka/Christman time, December 2008, but the weather is balmy, except for a breeze that occasionally makes its presence known in the form of microphone noise. He is making every effort to remain faithful to the process of hitbod'dut as he understands it based upon his sources, the Likutei Moharan text of Nachman of Breslav, and the Gestalt Therapy texts of Fritz Perls. Also, as he tells us, he is at pains to select topics personal enough to be meaningful and on the other hand not so personal that he damages himself or others by having an audience find out about them. If you think that is easy, he suggests you try it yourself sometime with your own recording equipment and send him the results. CONTENTS (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? (b) PROJECTION (c) INTROJECTION (d) CONFLUENCE (e) RETROFLECTION (f) EGOTISM (g) SUMMARY (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AHL ARAVOT"ABOVE THE SPHERES (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS (d) DIALOGUE OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM (h) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE AND "SHOR" (BULL) (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI (l) SUMMARY (m) WHO IS MR. H? (1) SMART HITBOD'DUT AND DUMB HITBOD'DUT (a) WHAT IS HITBOD'DUT? Recording number one. This is an experiment. We're going to see if it works. FW: So, Mr. H, listen, it's Wepner here. I got to deal with a fly that's buzzing around me, and I got to deal with you at the same time. So, forgive me . . . if I don't quite connect! So here I am sitting in my studio, with my microphone, and my recorder, and my keyboard. (plays sounds) That was "orchestra". You want to hear a trumpet? (more sounds) Trombone? (more sounds) That's not a good trombone. (sounds) That sounded a little more like a trombone. (sounds) OK, so Mr. H, I'm not going to say who You really are, since I'm not supposed to use Your name in vain. But I'm going to play around with this project, and see what happens. So the point of the project is we're going to talk about the difference between smart hitbod'dut and dumb hitbod'dut. First of all, what is "hitbod'dut"? It's a Hebrew word meaning "being alone". But the way the religious people usually use it, when they say "hitbod'dut", is that you're supposed to be alone talking to God, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof. Like you say, Ha-shem! Oh, you're not supposed to say Ha-shem. Mr. H! I'm trying to peddle my work, and nobody wants to take it seriously. So I'm trying this approach, making a CD like this. Maybe somebody will listen to it. Nincompoops out there! Listen! Listen. I got something important here. If you dummies don't appreciate it, that's your problem! (b) PROJECTION In hitbod'dut, when you do a projection you think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is yourself! Let's see how that works. That sounds a little bit like Schopenhauer. " The World as Will and Representation (or Idea)". The Will is the force that motivates things, keeps them going along. The representation, that's our ideas, our projecting all over the place, and we make a world out of that. So from this point of view everything is a projection. If I say, FW: Mr. H out there, hi! You seem rather withdrawn today. You're not talking much. What am I doing? I'm just projecting my own "withdrawn-ness" out there into the void, into that empty space, wallpapering the world with withdrawn-ness. Basically, I'm talking about my own "withdrawn-ness". In other words, I'm experiencing some withdrawn-ness, but I don't want to acknowledge that I am withdrawing, that I am holding back, so I project it out there and I say, FW: Mr. H, you are withdrawing! That's called a projection. But if I don't realize I'm doing that, if I don't realize that I am making that projection, then I'm just going to say, FW: Hey, Mr. H, how come you won't talk to me today? I'm lost in myself. I have no contact with Mr. H, because all I'm contacting is my own projection, my own dumb projection because I'm not aware of what I'm doing. You think you're talking to God, but really all you're talking to is your own crappy ego that you're trying to get out of! You see? And there are a million different variations of the same ego game. (c) INTROJECTION We're rattling off the Gestalt list of problems, the list of "self-interruptions" as they call them. Next on the list is "introjection". So instead of interrupting your communication with God or with your soul, or whatever it is, with a projection, you might try an "introjection" that day, that moment. The roots of the word "Introjection" is "jectare", to throw, and "intro", in; so it's "throwing in" that you are doing. You're swallowing whole some authority figure in your life, most likely when you were a child, for example, if you had an authoritarian father. Father: That's it! Do what I say, and that's it. I don't want to hear from you! That's the authoritarian father. You want to do hitbod'dut. You want to talk to God but you're just talking to your introject, your dybbuk, that soul of your father that doesn't want to go away, that's possessing you, inhabiting you, polluting you So you say, Hey, Hashem! And then you imagine Hashem saying something critical. Mr. H: Oh, you dumb son-of-a-bitch, you screwed up your life today. You should crawl! So you say, (whining) Oh, Hashem, I'm so terrible. I did this today, and I hurt this person and I hurt that person. Oh, forgive me, Hashem! But really, you're not talking to Hashem. You're just talking to your father again. And, you know, it's boring. It's stupid. You're not going to get to Hashem that way. You're just going to get back to your father, and the more you get into that trip of projecting that authoritarian image out there the more lost you get in self-abuse. Oh, God, how can I possibly do all of your 10,000 mitzvot, commandments?! It's overwhelming. I can't do it. I'm a terrible Jew! That's bullshit! That's religious bullshit that you're stuck in because your rebbes don't know what they're doing so they can't teach you what you should do. You understand? You get the idea? That's "introjection". OK? You got an introjected authority figure, or maybe you got an introjected mama that was always, Mama: Oh, my poor, loving, what can I do for you this moment, you poor, helpless child? So then every time you talk to God you're going to be talking to your mother that's calling you a poor, helpless child, and you're going to say, (crying) Oh, God, I'm so helpless today, I don't know what to do! I'm so helpless. I can't deal with anything! And then you're back to being the crybaby that mother incubated in her womb cause she needed to have a crybaby so she could play her game on you. So there's another introject! (d) CONFLUENCE What else do we got here in our package of goodies, our ego goodies that we use all day long? Umm, we did projection, we did introjection. Now, another one. The worst once is "confluence". That's where you're totally out of touch with anything except your own habits. So let's say you have a habit of bossing people around, FW: Do it my way, or else, buddy! Look, I'm running the show here! So then you're going to treat Hashem that way. Mr. H! Hi. Here's my list of what I want today. I want this and I want that. I want some money. I need about 25 students, to help pay the rent. I need some credibility here. These rabbis won't take me seriously. I don't have any credential . . . but that was my problem. No! I don't have any problems. I'm perfect! You need to give me what I want, and that's it! That's it, cause I'm just in touch with me and my needs. All right, that's it. Give me this and give me that. That's an example of confluence. "Con" is "with" and "fluere" is "to flow". You're flowing with your past habit, your previous habit of being a spoiled, snotnose child that got whatever he wants. So, Hashem, here's my list. I want two pounds of coleslaw, two dozen knackniks, uh, a new pair of underwear and some perfume. OK. That's what I want today. You better deliver it, or else! (e) RETROFLECTION Let's see what else we got here? OK, there's "retroflection", the perseverator. I'm feeling a need to communicate with God, but instead of letting that need come out directly, I am putting all the energy into myself. So I'm going to dahven up a storm (Yiddish: "to pray"). I'm dahvening back and forth, (straining, pushing, working himself up to a frenzy of hysteria) Oh, I'm dahvening back and forth. I'm swaying back and forth. My muscles are tense. And I can't, and I'm tightening up my throat, and all my energy is going into me, and this repetitive, retro . . . "retro-", "back", "-flection", "turning it all back onto myself". All my energy is going back into my body. Instead of contacting Hashem, I'm just contacting my own anxieties, my own perseverating, my own compulsions. (wailing) Ohhhh, oh, I'm swaying back and forth, I'm dahvening. I'm dahvening. Hashem, you gotta give me this! My life is falling apart! I can't take it! I can't take it! I can't even breathe! I can't, I can't, I can't, I, I, I . . . (gasping for breath, wailing) That is another dumb move! That's retroflection. You don't want to do that either. It's healthier than confluence, healthier than introjection, healthier than projection, 'cause the energy at least is coming out. But instead of going to Hashem, it's going back into your own body, your own anxieties, your own trip. (f) EGOTISM What else we got? There's one more on the list: egotism. OK, now you're really getting close to Hashem. Oh, hello, God, Excuse me, I'm not supposed to say Hashem. Hello, Mr. H. This is Wepner today. And I'm . . . er, umm . . . Oh, "praise"! Praise Mr. H! You're so wonderful. You fill the world with your goodness, and all that. Now praising the Lord at least gets you a little bit, a little bit out of your head, whether the words mean anything or not. But at least it gets you out of your own ego trip. 'Cause, you know, nobody knows what Hashem is, what Mr. H is anyway. So you praise, Oh, Mr. H, you're so wonderful. You run the whole world. You create, every moment you're creating me and my life. Oh, I thank you so much! But then, when you get to the bigger things, Oh, God, I need to tell you what I really need today, and then, all of a sudden, Oh, but I'm embarrassed! (fearful, withdrawing) I'm afraid to tell you. I'm afraid. I mean, you know, Franklyn here, I'm not the kind of guy that shares this kind of stuff. I'm just not that type, you know. I'll tell you tomorrow. Maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But today I just want to tell you how wonderful you are, and everything . . . OK, that's "egotism". What did I do? The energy almost comes out, but I short circuit it. I short circuit it, and I say, "I'm not the type that can". I'm stuck in an image of myself. So the image of myself is a box I put myself in. And again I block my impulses. I'm almost there. I'm almost communicating with Mr. H, whatever that is, but I fall back on being a certain type, and therefore my ego image of myself is my self-interruption. (g) SUMMARY So we have these five different levels of self-interruptions. (1) Confluence is the worst one, where you're not in touch with anything, except your habits. And if you're not in the back ward of a hospital, a psych ward, even then you're not functioning too well. (2) The next one is introjection. You've introjected, you've swallowed whole some authority figure, from childhood probably, so you are not aware of what you need at all. All you are aware of is what he needs. (3) And then comes projection. This time when you have a need, instead of feeling the need yourself you think they have that need towards you. You're projecting the need out there. For example, Oh, I'm so sad! And then you think of Hashem out there, God, You must be so sad at your people Israel today. Mr H, you must be so sad at your people Israel today, because of all the terrible things we did! (4) Then there's retroflection. That's the one where you're back and forth with all kinds of tension and anxiety, and all the energy flows into your own body and your compulsive repetitions. (5) And finally there's egotism, where you have a frozen image of yourself as a certain type. You're almost ready to be authentic, but then you get stuck. So that's our introduction to different ways of doing "dumb hitbod'dut". You see how stupid it is, cause all you're doing is being stuck in your own ego habits and ego trips. The trouble is you don't know how to do the process so well, so you might need to call me up, FW: Hey, give me a job, buddy. I need the money! So call me up and I can help you! Or, read the book. "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim" is one book, by Perls, Frederick Perls. That's the easiest one to read. The more thorough, more systematic one, is "Gestalt Therapy", by Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. Those are the main books of Gestalt. So if you don't want to pay me, then buy the books and do it yourself. It took me 35 years to figure this out. We'll see how long it takes you to figure it out. (2) SMART HITBOD'DUT AS INDUCTION, FAITH AND PRAYER (a) HERE & NOW ON MY FAVORITE HITBOD'DUT HILL IN YAVNIEL OK. Welcome, folks. This is good old Franklyn here, older every day. I'm sitting here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel. What we're trying to do here is a hitbod'dut session, smart hitdod'dut instead of dumb hitbod'dut. I hope you've done your homework and listened to the first session, the "dumb hitbod'dut" one, so you know what not to do. This time, now, I'm going to see if I can do it right. Of course, I have a split focus here, Mr. H. up there and you folks out there. We'll see what I can do. I don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm testing, testing the audio system. Test! Test! Test! OK, I guess it's all right. Testing, testing. Maybe it's too soft. Maybe it's all right. Um, I'm here and now. I'm looking out there. I see blueness. I see blueness in the clouds. And I see green-ness down there, all kinds of shades of green in the fields. And I hear some noise. I'm looking around. Now it stopped. If you're listening to the disk, you can hear that noise also. I hear a bird, some kind of . . . I hear a bird. And . . . so the first thing is we want to get into the here and now. (b) THE TREE OF LIVING ORGANISMS: "GESTALTS" You see, every moment of awareness is a gestalt, an idea, a living creature, according to this philosophy, phenomenology. We're dealing here with contact experiences, with the living reality, the living contact boundary of experience. They call it the living God, the divine soul . . . whatever you want to call it. And every moment of contact is an organism, an idea that organizes a certain amount of input, of awareness - sensory awareness or motor awareness - into a pattern, into a living organism. And then we have higher and higher levels of organisms. For example, if I look out there and see a twig blowing in the wind. I see "twig". That's organism number one. And now I feel a breeze. I'm putting together sense of "breeze" plus visual input of "twig", and that gives me a combined higher level integration of the two gestalts, the two little mini-organisms, micro-organisms, into a higher level organism. Et cetera, et cetera, right up the ladder till I get to God, who is like the highest level, or beyond the highest level. What's that noise? That sounds like some sort of a bird. Quack, quack. That sounds like a woodpecker. You hear it? Maybe it's an animal. Mm, sounds very close, doesn't it? Kah, kah. Is there something wrong with my machine, or something? What is it? What is it? There it is again. Anyway, so what does it have to do with Ha-shem? (c) MR. H "ROCHEV AL ARAVOT", ABOVE THE SPHERES Even though we haven't mentioned the word "Mr. H" yet, we're still dealing with Him, in the sense that we start on this ascent, going up and up to bigger and bigger gestalts, to higher and higher levels of integration, the little gestalts and the bigger gestalts. At the highest level we get to the outermost sphere. If we use Aristotle's terminology (and Maimonides' terminology), we're dealing with spheres. That was 500 B.C. Aristotle talked about spheres. We call them gestalts. So we've really progressed, haven't we? The same thing with a different label. According to Aristotle and Maimonides you have bigger and bigger spheres. Man is the center of the universe. And so I'm starting with little spheres and working my way out to big spheres. Mr. H's sphere is the one that's beyond the spheres. As they say in Judaism, "rochev al aravot", He "rides on the deserts" of all the dead forms that He's going to "m'chayei maytim", that He's going "to bring back to life". That's the theory, anyway. (d) LEIBNIZ' THEORY OF MONADS Another way, another jargon we can use, is Leibniz' terminology. We can call every one of these gestalts a "monad", from the word "one": one little unit of oneness, one organism. We start adding up gestalts or monads. Then, instead of building up a strong gestalt which includes many weak gestalts, we build up a "monadology", a big tree of all these little monads all integrated into one big idea or one big monadology. That's Leibniz' theory, a little bit. OK. Now we're going back to Ha-shem here. All right. So let's make it more specific. Let's talk to Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Hope you're home today, 'cause I got an audience. (e) REINTEGRATING PROJECTIONS Now let's see. If I already did that, did I just use a projection? "I hope You're home today!", In other words, "Did You abandon me today?" "Did You leave?" "Did You close the door?" Now, that has to be my own ego projection of "abandonment". I'm feeling abandoned right now . . . by all you folks who won't pay my rent! Aggravation. So the way to deal with a projection of "abandonment", Ha-shem as "the abandoning God", is to reown it, to include that part of myself, that gestalt, that fragment of God that I just projected out there. We need to include it, integrate it. So I'm going to play God. I'm going to play the Abandoning God, and see what He has to say. Mr. H: Wepner, it's about time you got here! I'm losing my patience with you. I'm going to give you another crack at it today, to see if I can take you seriously. The sound of that voice doesn't sound too much like Mr. H. That sounds like Franklyn Wepner. I got to find a voice for Mr. H, so I can tell them apart. (f) NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED Mr. H: Well, ho ho, it's about time you got here, you dummy. I've been waiting for you. You brought all these people with you! Snotnose, can't you give me a little time by yourself? You gotta bring all your friends along! OK. Well, what do you want today? FW: There we got a gestalt problem. No questions allowed, Mr. H! We're doing Gestalt here. No questions. Everything has to be direct. You don't want to sabotage the process. Mr. H: Well, let me see now. I'll make that a statement. FW: That's right. You gotta make it a statement. Mm. Let's see. I think I'm going to stop here and see what I got here on this tape, if I got anything at all! All right? . . . OK. So where were we? All right. It worked fine, so far. I got a good recording. We'll go on. Well, we're not really going "on". It's still the same old here and now. And if we're lucky we'll be able to say we got to the "messianic now". Huh? If we succeed in this project . . . That noise! The microphone is making a noise in the pocket. I got to stop that noise . . . FW: So, Mr. H, we were saying "no questions allowed". Mr. H: Uhhh. Ya gotta worry 'bout technology up here? All right, wadaya want? Uhhh. All right, no questions. So, uh, I'd like to hear what your needs are today, Wepner. FW: Well, let's see. Like I said, I need some money. First of all, that comes to mind. Um, I got woman problems, too, because, you see, I have this girl friend I've known for 26 years, ex-wife. And she's around, visiting. On the other hand, I got on the internet and I met a few more. So the ones on the internet are upset about the ex-wife, and the ex-wife is upset about the ones on the internet. And, um, I'm not the type that can lie to people. So, (chuckle) I have a tragicomedy situation here. I might end up with nobody! Mr. H: Ha, ha, ha, ha. Serves you right! Triple timing, quadruple timing! (g) "PRAYER" AS RIDING THE MOMENTS FW: Well, so you're not going to give me advice? Help me out here, Mr. H, what should I do about these women? Mr. H: Well, umm, uh . . . FW: Oh, I'm not supposed to ask questions either! I'm supposed to say . . . something. Well, I'm just riding the moments, you know. Staying with the here and now thing and trusting, with faith. And by being in the here and now, that is a form of prayer. 'Cause I'm not anticipating, not demanding, just living the moments and trusting with a certain amount of faith that, uh, that somehow You'll take care of things! Right? Mr. H: Well, that's very good! You're beginning to get the point, buddy! FW: All right! Then I'm doing it right, huh? Oh, no questions allowed. So maybe I'm doing it right. I'm trusting, you know, and uh . . . What's real will be real, and what's not real will be not real. And that's it! Right? Mr. H: All right, what's next? What else do you want? Oh, no questions. I'm proud of you, Wepner, you're getting your act together here. You're takin' the whole show, you're takin' me on the road too. Maybe we'll get some converts, huh! You're doin' some "kiruv". "Kiruv", a Hebrew word meaning "bring 'em closer". So, you're doin' a good job. You're doin' a good job! Very good! FW: Thanks! . . . Let's see . . . Where was . . . Oh, "prayer" comes to mind. If I'm praying, I need a text. "Baruch atah adonoi, elohenu melech ha-olam, she hechiyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higiyanu la z'man ha-zeh." Mr. H: Better tell 'em what it means, huh! We might have some goyem out there, listening. FW: Well, it means: Blessed art Thou, the Lord, er, Mr. H. We're not supposed to say Your name! Um, Who got us to this moment. Um, Who caused us to live, who sustained us, and brought us to this moment, this "now". So, thanks a lot! Mr. H: Nuttin'. It's OK. It's OK. Don't worry about it. All right. So we took care of that. We did some "prayer" here. This is "prayer", according to, according to my understanding, especially when you read Breslav stuff, like "Likutei Moharan" (Collected Essays of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav). The emphasis is on faith and on prayer. It means being in the here and now, and trusting that what comes out of the here and now in your attempts, in your dialogue with God, with Mr. H, will somehow be real, in fact more real than what you started out with! So, we're testing out that hypothesis right here, in the laboratory. FW: So, Mr. H, You're my Guinea Pig today! Mr. H: Thanks a lot, buddy! I usually don't think of Myself as a guinea pig, you know . . . Well, in fact, pigs are not even kosher! FW: Well, all right, all right . . . A Guinea Chicken, all right? (h) INDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS DEDUCTIVE LOGIC So, uh, this is . . . Each time we take a new moment here, and stay with this thread of concentration, we're building up higher and higher levels of integration, of gestalts. This is called "inductive reasoning", "induction", "inductive logic", where we start with the particulars and work our way up the tree towards the general, towards the big oneness. FW: That's You! Mr. H: Yeah! You better not forget it, either! FW: The Big Oneness, so you're the "One Without A Second". And right now we're eliminating all the Seconds by integrating them into the Oneness. Every time I project another part of myself out there, of Your reality out there, that part needs to be integrated into the Oneness. Mr. H: Boy, that's very interesting. FW: Yeah. You see, I got you all figured out. Mr. H: I don't pay much attention to what I'm doing. I just do it! You know what I mean? FW: Well, but sometimes it helps people to understand the process a little better, 'cause a lot of people need logic to be convinced that praying is worth the trouble. Mr. H: You're right. Give 'em what they need! Well, let's see now. So, this is faith in the here and now, that this will lead to something . . . (noise) You hear that wind? Is that wind disturbing you folks there? I hear wind in my earphones. I think I'm going to close that button on my shirt where the mic is. If I close the button, less air will get in to you. I think the air is disturbing the people out there. It's disturbing me, anyway . . . The button's closed. Less air is going to get in there now . . . Yep. Quieter . . . OK. So here I am sitting on top of the hill. Now, what else is on my agenda? Let's see now . . . Brother Robert in a nursing home, in bad shape. I don't know to do! I got a conflict! Do I sell everything I own to get an airplane ticket to get to Miami to get him out of that nursing home, to bring him here to Israel? Or not? I was hoping various people - I won't mention their names to embarrass them - would come up with the money. But they didn't, so far. So unless something works, I am faced with that very difficult alternative. I got to raise a thousand bucks for a ticket. That's real! That's right now! Now, this is . . . If you're listening out there, I guess I'm doing fund raising, although I didn't plan to do that. OK, I'm doing fund raising. That's what's on my mind. What do you want from me?! Now I'm projecting onto you. I'm projecting onto you out there as "the accusing accusers". You're saying . . . I'll play your part. Accusers: You're using us! You grabbed our attention here with some fraudulent educational project, and now you're trying to bilk us for every cent we got! You no good shyster, you. Con man! I need a new voice for that one. Accuser: You no good shyster con man, you crappy guy! You're deceiving everybody, peddling garbage on the internet. Ech, ech! I'll fix you! Report you to the Federal Something-or-other! Have you banned! Abusing Frumster looking for women, and then you bilk 'em for money! Ha, ha! FW: Wait a minute. You sound like an old witch. Witch: Oh, yea! FW: You sound like an old witch. Look. If you have any compassion, you know, you're not going to be so critical. If you understand what I'm going through here. Understand! I'm not saying you have to come up with the dough, but at least you can understand. You don't have to accuse me. Witch: Well! Just like your sister said. You're just a shnorrer. Your whole life you never worked. FW: Now, come on, don't start that crap! So now we need . . . We have a strong dybbuk out there. a strong introject. It sounds like my father, a little bit. We're getting a little heavier here. We're going from association to association. We started with the judging females out there. Now we moved up to the witch. Then we moved into the association of my father. That's how . . . This process of moving from association to association is part of inductive logic, because each new point, each new association, is a new gestalt, a new moment, a new center, a new organism that's coming out of the void. Here we have a void of not knowing what to do. And each new gestalt, each new monad, each new moment of projection, whatever . . . They come by association, analogy, or types. We get into the category of judgmental types, so we jump from one judgmental individual to another judgmental individual, to another one. You notice we move from the superficial jerky women I just met this week to . . . FW: Excuse me, jerky women! I'm just making a . . . Don't take it too seriously! I'm just . . . Don't run away!! All right, so we're moving from superficial relationships to deeper ones. That is, we're moving up the great chain of being - as some people would call it. 'Cause each of these moments is associated, but they are not logically related in the usual sense of logic. They're just associations. Nachman of Breslav calls them "behinot" (Hebrew: "aspect of"). "Behinot": this is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of that. And Leibniz would say this is a monad which is a part of that monad, and that is a monad which is a part of another monad. That's a monad, and that's another monad. Another gestalt and another gestalt and another gestalt. One behinot and another behinot. And we're moving up the path of inductive logic. By the way, the opposite of that would be deductive logic. You start from, we start with the idea and you break it down into the little things. So we start with the idea of "here I am on the mountain". Well, on the mountain there are trees and other plants. There's a dog barking. There's wind and there's clouds. OK, we just broke the idea of "mountain" down into ten elements. Or "mountain experience", and we broke it down into ten other secondary experiences. And now we move in on the plants. Let's take the plant monad and break that down into, well, there's green ones and there's white ones and brown ones, and then we move in on the brown ones and there's this particular species and that particular species. That's deductive logic, moving from the big idea , like an upside down tree. Moving from the main root and trunk down to all the little, tiny little twigs. Moving from the One to the Many. That's deduction, and induction is moving from the many to the one. So Gestalt and prayer are mostly inductive experience, the way we're doing them here. Of course, you could do it differently. Maybe in your synagogue they would say, We're gonna do the Chanukah service today! So we'll do this, and we'll do that, and then we should do this and we should do that . . . And they break the idea of Chanukah down into many parts. That is "deductive prayer", and if that works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me very well. So we have deductive religion and we have inductive religion. You might say that Chabad is the deductive religion. You start from the one idea of the rebbe up there that knows everything and we know nothing. And he slices reality down into slices we are supposed to assimilate, weekly lessons and all this, and so it's all coming from the top. And if you like that kind of rationalist religion - where everything is analyzed and spoon fed according to what somebody thinks we're supposed to be digesting today, then you're a Chabadnik. But if you like the other path, what we're doing here, the Tevye fiddler on the roof path, then you're a Breslaver. If you're Catholic, the Breslavers are the Franciscans and the Chabadniks are the Dominicans, the Papists. So the Pope is like the Rebbe for the Catholics, and the Franciscans do what the Breslavers do, talking to God in the woods or whatever. OK, back to our lesson. Back to Ha-shem. I mean, Mr. H. FW: Hello, Mr. H. Mr. H: Humm. I'm gettin' bored of all those lectures. FW: All right, let's do something else. (i) THE RHYTHM OF CONTACT AND WITHDRAWAL Where was I? Oh, I was dealing with the conflict about women. Did I finish that one? I finished that one. Yea. My brother! So there's a very painful conflict. I don't know what to do! On the one hand, I want to save this guy's life. I don't know if I can. If I get there it might be too late to pile him into an airplane and drag him to Israel. I might be too late. But maybe I could get him to come here and maybe I could oversee him in a nursing home, and keep him alive for a while. So it's a conflict. On the other hand, I don't want to sell my equipment, my instruments and my video and everything. How am I going to do my work? Very painful conflict! Besides, in Israel I wouldn't get much for it. The video system is all NTSC, which is American style. And Israel is PAL. I would get practically nothing for the whole system. It's a painful conflict. So now, how do you deal with a conflict? Well, we have the rhythm of conflict and withdrawal. We have two opposites here. One side is saying, "you're being selfish", Side One: Sell the stuff! Go save the guy's life! Side Two: Hey, I've got a right to live, too, you know. I've got a right to live. He's my brother, but still I have a right. I worked so hard to get that stuff. Somebody already stole some of it. What do you want from me? Lay off. Lay off!!! We have two sides, and I can't . . . I don't know which is right. So we have the rhythm of contact and withdrawal. What does that mean? Simply, let the two monads, the two gestalts sit there, and go inside into the Void. You might say it's "active forgetting". Forget about them, and trust. It's prayer. Again, it's prayer. Cause we're doing faith, and we're letting go of our rational control. And we'll see what happens. I'm gonna do it right now, and see what I get. OK? It might not work at all, but let's just see what happens. I close my eyes, and stop talking for a moment, and get into my body awareness. I'm comfortable. (strong exhale) My breathing is sort of strained . . . a little chilly . . . mmm . . . my breathing feels fine . . . I don't feel much body tension. All right. I'll do a daydream . . . mmm . . . I have an image. It doesn't seem to fit, but anyway, whatever comes, comes. Right? . . . . So here I see myself sitting here with somebody . . . Maybe I shouldn't say who it is, to protect that person's privacy, if I can. I'm sitting here with somebody, in a certain comfy place . . . maybe having a cup of tea or something . . . enjoying that bit of domestic facility, felicity . . . That's my association. What does it have to do with the conflict? Don't know yet. That's the faith aspect here. Don't know. Don't have to know. I allow myself not to know, long enough to discover something. I'll stay with that image a little bit, to see what happens . . . (audible exhale) . . . New image! The image of the experimental theater world somewhere. New York, maybe. Excitement of the theater! Working with all of my skills, and my media. Makes me say to myself, "I want to hang onto my equipment. I want to hang onto my equipment." Now I go to Robert. The rabbi visited him and said he looked like he is 90 years old. Strapped to his wheelchair so he doesn't try to drive it over a, to throw himself out of it to commit suicide . . . poor guy, he's so upset about Mother's death. He doesn't want to eat . . . Now I see an image of the nursing home here in Yavniel. He could be here, if I can get him here. Another image. This morning I called the police department where my sister is, to try to get her to cooperate. He signed over his property to her, but she doesn't give a damn whether he dies or not. So I had the police go and try to find out her phone number which she cut off so I wouldn't be able to call her. Maybe the police will be able to squeeze that airfare out of her. She has power of attorney that he gave her, to sell his apartment. She'll get at least $25,000 or $50,000 for that! And if she gives me $2000 for the trip, to save his life, I think that's reasonable. (j) THE CONCRETE DIALECTIC: THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS See that! We saw the process here. The process was: first, associations; one monad to another. Thesis, antithesis. The thesis was: I should sell my equipment. The antithesis was: I don't want to sell my equipment! I'm groping around in the Void. Then there is a synthesis, a possible action, and that is: "pursue her, and squeeze the money out of her". So there's the integration, the action that possibly could resolve it. So where did I get the idea from? I didn't, I wasn't thinking of it at the beginning, but you see I was trusting Mr. H. You see that, Mr. H? You're beginning to give me the new idea. Mr. H: Thank's alot. You keep me busy all day long with your problems, one after the other, you know? You're a nuisance! FW: Well, right now is a bad time. But once I get things straightened out, you'll see. You'll be proud of me! Mr. H: I got a lot of patience, you know. All right. So that's an example of faith, prayer, in the inductive, or the pietist tradition, where you don't figure it out logically. You just trust that whatever comes is somehow going to, is part of an ongoing process of the organism attempting to grow, to integrate itself, to restore the Oneness, to find the way to Hashem, the Oneness. "Echad v'ayn sheni", the One Without A Second. How do you like that?! Mr. H: Gee!! I feel appreciated. FW: You certainly are! You see that? We did it right! We did some Gestalt, But I won't call it Gestalt today. We did prayer. We did hitbod'dut, smart hitbod'dut, and we demonstrated a process. Maybe that was too easy, 'cause I . . . Actually, I knew the answer, cause, I mean, I called the police this morning, so it wasn't far from my conscious mind, although I wasn't quite ready to say that when I started out. But, uh, well . . . let's see, should I stop here? Maybe I'll stop here and take stock. All right? And then I'll decide if I want to go on today. All right. Bye bye. (3) USING PROJECTIONS CREATIVELY FOR HITBOD'DUT (a) USING PROJECTIONS IN HITBOD'DUT Recording. Recording. OK. This is the third attempt, the third project. The word "Hitbod'dut": I even forgot to say what it means. In Hebrew "bohdayd" means "alone". To "hitbodayd" means to be alone, to make yourself alone, and when religious people talk about hitbod'dut, they're usually talking about some kind of meditation or prayer procedure, being alone with God, Hashem. I'm calling Him Mr. H because we're supposed to be respectful about that name. OK. So today's project . . . well, I'll first review a little bit. In the first project I talked about dumb hitbod'dut, and one of the things we do when we're doing dumb hitbod'dut is we're making projections without being aware that we are making projections. For example, if I think that everybody's out to get me, which I do think sometimes, then I'm projecting my own aggression onto people, onto the world, instead of using it myself in a more creative way. It's easier to think that everyone, all of you, are out to get me! To get my money. Ha, ha, ha! To mess me up, to deny me success, fame and fortune, for your own ulterior motives, whatever they might be. OK. So even though you're such terrible people, I'm still motivated to try to do my work here. So today I want to try to do the opposite of dumb hitbod'dut. I want to explore how to use projections to do smart hitbod'dut or other creative things. (b) FINDING A CONCRETE SITUATION FOR HITBOD'DUT I'll take some typical situation . . . I'm trying to think of some situation which I can deal with without being too personal - so I don't mess myself up here - and personal enough that it's interesting. You know, it's very difficult to pick a topic . . . I'm going to pick my mother's death, which happened about 5 months ago, four and a half months ago, and it was very painful at the time. I'm going to explore nature objects, what I see out here. Once again I'm on top of my old, my favorite hitbod'dut hill, here in Yavniel, and here on this rock because it's the only place I could find to sit without sitting on the ground. Next time I got to bring a chair. There aren't too many objects around here. I picked a rather desolate place. But even so, maybe I can find something to work with here. Ah, I see this old piece of plastic jar, a piece of plastic from a bottle. It was once a soda pop bottle, or something. Jagged edges, and just dumped here. OK, now what can I do with that? (noise) Oops, there goes a motorcycle. (noise) Hear the motorcycle? I want to project onto that bottle my relationship to my mother. That doesn't make much sense. I don't know what its going to lead to, maybe nothing. But let's do it. OK? So, let's see . . . I see you over there. First I start with addressing the object. (loud motorcycle noises) Those crappy guys with the motorcycles are coming here! (more motorcycle noises) I come here to get away from crappy people, and the crappy people follow me out here . . . They'll probably be back. That's bad, but I'll try to work anyway. I might have to throw this attempt out . . . So, this plastic thing. I'm looking at it. I see you over there, plastic object (sound) . . . That's the wind . . . You're green, and you have what used to be a top of you. It goes around, and, uh, you're jagged, dark green, and you certainly don't belong here on top of my favorite hitbod'dut hill here in Yavniel, but somebody dumped you here . . . Gestalt therapy is a commitment to boredom. That's one of the things that Fritz Perls said. So if you're bored you can leave . . . (humming: dum, dum, dum) . . . contacting body awareness . . . I'm slouched over here . . . I'll sit up better, breathe better . . . There's a smoky smell in the air, like somebody's burning bushes or something . . . It takes time to find the images . . . A fly is bothering . . . I'm scratching a fly . . . OK, I have an image. I'm thinking of noises, disturbing noises. The image flashes back to about 1965. Then I was in Uncle Sam's Army, in Ft. Sam Houston, Texas . . . and I was a Private, and because I was a Private I was living with all these other Privates from all over the country. Here I have just walked out of medical school, big egghead type, and want to do music, to write music. That's why I walked out of medical school, to write music, and here I am listening all day long to music that I hate, rock and roll loud music. So instead of writing the music that I want to write, I'm stuck being drafted here into the Army . . . They told me if I didn't enlist they'd draft me, so I enlisted . . . The image is I am getting so angry about that noise that I pick up that radio on this guy's bed, double decker bed, and I throw it right out the window! I threw it right out the window. Of course, he came and pummeled me for that. He pummeled me for that, beat me up - but it was worth it! I felt it was worth it . . . What does that have to do with this situation today? Some things are "worth it"! That's it! You know? A person gets to a point sometimes. I get to a point sometimes, you do, where you're willing to pay the price. In this case, I so much wanted to come back to the Aretz ("the land", Israel) to try to do my work. 'Cause nine years I was in the United States and I couldn't find a way to connect to things. I couldn't . . . I tried going to New York peddling my shows. Negative. I peddled my shows in the Miami area. Negative. And then I got some video equipment and started learning how to do that. Then I felt that now that I have some skills I want to go back to Israel and do something with it. I couldn't find a project to connect to, and people to relate to in the United States. Meanwhile, mother is 101 years old. Robert's in a wheelchair, brother Robert. So nine years went by until one day . . . Mother, you're getting very belligerent. You're starting to criticize me, and saying I'm not doing what I should be doing, and all this, and here I am giving up all this to be with you here. Well, that was like, that's the last straw, Mother. FW: If you don't appreciate what I'm doing for you, well, then I'm not going to do it! I'm just going to leave. That plus all the other things I need to do. That tips the balance. So I'm leaving. I'm leaving!! I'm going!! Mother: Well, I'm going to die, and it will be your fault! It will be all your fault. (c) THIS IS PROPHECY AND ANAMNESIS You see, that's a typical ego game trip. That's me projecting the critical side of myself onto my Mother. That's the topdog criticizing the underdog. But the image gave me more. The image also gave me the power to deal with that. 'Cause like I said, a person has a center, and when you contact your center - like I just did - this image, this soul, is like a voice, a macrocosmic Idea being sucked down into the microcosm. This is the way Rabbi Nachman talks about it in Likutei Moharan, essay 3. What is it? The prophets nurse on, nurse on a particular something or other. In other words, suck on something. Yea, the prophets suck the images down from the macrocosm down into the microcosm. In this case the image goes back to 40 years ago, I was 22 years old, 45 years ago! Almost 45 years ago! So that image came back from 45 years ago. That was what we call, what Plato calls "anamnesis". And here it happens right here. Plato talked about it 2500 years ago, and here it happened here and now! And what is anamnesis? "An" means "not". "Amnesis" is "forgetting". "To forget". So, "not to forget". In other words, a kind of active remembering. Now, what are you remembering? I had a conflict. Two sides were "stuck". So the first idea of this dialectical process we are doing here is . . .The first idea is the thesis, the one side. Then, the antithesis is the other side, and the synthesis is the integration of the two of them in a higher idea. Now in this process anamnesis means going back, remembering the most basic ideas. Doing a process like this, the most basic idea is the thesis. And another one is the antithesis, and the other one is the synthesis, and that dialectic is what we call the Logos, the Word of God. Plato called it The Demiurge. (Greek: demos=people, urgos=work, i.e., an artisan, one with a special skill that does people-work, work for the people). It's the work of God being done in this world. (d) DIALECTIC OF AVRAHAM, YITZCHAK & YAAKOV AS "ANGEL" In Likutei Moharan number 7 Nachman talks about an angel. He calls it "Eglah". He says the Eglah is an angel that somehow encompasses two voids, the two "t'homot", the two abysses. That's the (Void of the) macrocosm and the (Void of the) microcosm. And an angel is a force that does the work of God in this world. That's the dialectic here. The dialectic is a process that encompasses both kinds of ideas: the higher, Platonic, macrocosmic Ideas, and the lower, microcosmic Ideas, the ideas of this world. The Platonic Ideas are the ones we need to do a process like this to remember. In Judaism you find this way of thinking all over every major Jewish philosopher. In Judaism these three major ideas usually are symbolized by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. In Likutei Moharan, beginning with essay number 1, you see it everywhere. Yaakov is the synthesis. Avraham is the thesis. Yitzchak is the antithesis. Yaakov is the synthesis. In what sense? We started off today with awareness. Here and now I'm aware of this, I'm aware of that, Then the opposite of that is two things you are aware of, in conflict. That's Yitzchak. And the higher integration, the action that allows you to integrate those two and move on in your life, that's symbolized by Yaakov. So we have the right pillar of the Sefirot: Chokhmah, Chesed. That column is the Avraham one. The left pillar, Binah, Gevurah, that's the Yitzchak side. And the middle pillar, that's the Yaakov side, the action (proper balance of activity and passivity, middle way). OK. So in this case, going back to my little project, my little experiment here (audible exhale), I was torn between Mother saying, Mother: You should be ashamed of yourself, and me saying, I have a right to my needs also. And I have a mission even as important as our mission here, you and me, in Israel. So by going into the (microcosmic) Void, doing anamnesis, subjecting myself to, surrendering to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, the dialectic (of the combined microcosm and macrocosm), the angel Eglah . . . (e) THE SPIRALING DIALECTIC OF EGLAH / EEGUL Why did he call it an "Eglah", by the way? In Likutei Moharan 7, the root there. "Eglah" means (in Aramaic) a "bull". The word "eglah" means "bull", an angel that's somehow associates to a bull. Nachman adds: "this corresponds to Eegulim (circles), which is an aspect of faith". Now, if we use a little bit of philosophy, which I am sure Nachman of Breslav knew about, we notice that the word "eglah" has the same root as "Eegul". "Eegul" means "circle", "circling". Now, what circles? The dialectic, the spiraling dialectic. I'm torn between "X" and "-X". I somehow find my way out of that, move up to being torn between "Y" and "-Y", move out of that, get up to "Z" and "-Z". OK? So, it's a spiraling, an ascending. It's a circle! And Aristotle says, and this is one of the key passages that Maimonides brought down from Aristotle into Judaism, that the most important kind of motion is "local motion". What is local motion? Local motion is in a circle and in one place. So what kind of motion is in a circle and in one place, that also progresses? A spiral. You move from the bottom, and that's Jacob's Ladder. One beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic, the next beat of the dialectic. So in this case with my Mother I did one beat of the dialectic. I was torn between Mother and myself, my own needs, and I moved up from X/-X to Y. The new idea is "I have a higher purpose, a higher mission that I need to do, and it is worth the price!" Mother, it's worth the price. It's worth the price. Here I am in Israel, struggling at age 67 to do a little bit of what I can do, and it's worth the price. 'Cause you were taken care of by Robert, and you could have been taken of by Barbara if you would agree to go there. But no, you had to be too stuck to your own independence. You wanted to be alone, so everyone has a right to commit suicide, and you more or less did that. Barbara could have taken you over there, but you wouldn't go. I know you wanted to be with Robert, but you could have found a way to bring Robert with you to Oregon. But you didn't do it. OK, so, I moved up to Y, I moved up the angel, the dialectic. I moved up from one level to the next. And here I am at Y. Right? Now, I don't know where Y is going to lead me. (f) NEW PROJECTIONS: TIBERIUS (Y) AND YAVNIEL (-Y) So now I look around for another projection. I'll do another projection, and see where that leads me. OK? What do I see? Ah . . . This great big, prominent object over there. On the hill is the city of Tiberius, seen from the other side. Not the side where the sea of Galilee is, but the other side. It looks like a pile of junk on top of a nice green hill. White junk, grey junk. Kind of a skin disease, the way D. H. Lawrence once put it in a novel, moving towards Yavniel, year by year, as the fields disappear and the city gets bigger and bigger. OK. So maybe I can use that as a projection. FW: Tiberius, you are a skin disease, moving towards this little glade here. Ten years from now Yavniel and Tiberius might be part of the same, the same . . . skin disease. Tiberius: I am Tiberius. I am . . . (starting again, with a high cackely, rapid witchy voice) I am Tiberius, ha, ha, ha. Skin disease, you . . . You people, listen to me. I'm crawling into your minds! I'm brainwashing you, to think like me. Heh, heh, heh! I'm encroaching. I'm insidious. FW: I'm sitting over here. And I'm Yavniel. OK? I'm the fields of Yavniel. (musical, rolling voice) Oooo, I'm flowing here and I'm flowing there. Ooooooooooooo. My eyes are rolling over my rolling hills here. I'm green, and I'm brown . . . the fields and the wind blowing and nature and it's all very lovely and . . . I see that skin disease over there. Skin disease! By the time you get here I'll be somewhere else. I'll be different fields. I like the fields. You're not going to catch me! Tiberius: Ehhh! You think so, eh? You know you're not going to make a buck up here! You're gonna come back to Jerusalem, and live in one of those crappy tenements in Jerusalem, if you can afford even that! Heh, heh, heh. You, you loser, you! FW: Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to figure out a way to stay here. You know that? I figured it out! I figured it out. I think I have just enough money, and I think I can bribe the landlord. I can tell him, "Look. I'll give you all of my equipment. You can just keep it as collateral until I get caught up with the rent. You know that? You won't get to me! I'll be able to sit here and do my work, right on this hill. How do you like that! Tiberious: Yahhhhh. Shit! FW: But, sooner or later I'll have to go to Jerusalem. And that's it, you know. (g) THE SYNTHESIS: YAAKOV, JERUSALEM Association! Jerusalem as the synthesis. So we have Yavniel, the fields of Yavniel as one side, the rolling fields of nature. That somehow associates to spirituality. And we have Tiberius as a skin disease over there, with all those crappy tourists and heat and humidity and drying up lake . . . and that's the skin disease. But Jerusalem somehow could be a synthesis. 'Cause there you have spirituality and an urban environment. There's enough spirituality to balance the urban-ness. You got maybe a few decent, spiritual people there, among all the phonies. It might be worth the trouble to live there and to try to work it out. (g) TSELEM ELOKIM AND THE COMING SOLUTION So there we went from Y to -Y. Y is skin disease, or Y is Yavniel, the fields . . . No, in this case Y was Tiberius, the strong one, trying to enslave, to infest, Yavniel, the fields, the underdog. We had a conflict, and we didn't have to go into the Void. It naturally associated. "Zoht b'hinah zoht! Zoht b'hinah Zoht!" That's what Nachman of Breslav would say. "This is an aspect of that, and that's an aspect of this", and the associations led up to the next level, from Y to minus Y to Z. Now we're up to Z. We're on another level, encompassing . . . All the time we're bringing more and more aspects of me, and doing this process I'm a "tselem elokim" (Hebrew: "image of God"). I am doing God's work here, working in the image of God, doing an action in the here and now in a meditative process. So it's pure stuff. This is the demiurge of Plato at work. This is the divine soul of Chabad at work. This is . . . what does Nachman call it? . . . Yaakov, he calls it, the middle pillar. Yaakov's the middle pillar, he says, and that's the action. So we're working our way up the logos, the Word of God, the ascent. And, again, this is inductive, inductive logic here. Remember. We're going from the specifics up towards the general idea, looking towards "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", God riding, hovering over the desert of games we play, the trips we run on ourselves and on the world. Meanwhile, the coming solution somehow is beckoning us. We are reaching out to God, and God, we like to believe, is reaching out to us. FW: Mr. H, we're reaching out to you, and I hope you're reaching out to us. What do you say, Mr. H? Mr. H: You're gettin' pretty good at this stuff, boy. I really think you're doin' a good job today. I was worried you'd never get started, with all those distractions, but you finally got your concentration going there. Yea! So like I'm waitin' here for you folks, and nice to see you folks workin' towards me! So, one of these days . . . We need Mashiach. That's a job for Mashiach. You see, you guys, you people should be proud of what, you should be appreciating this Wepner guy, you know. Look, he's doing the work of Mashiach! He's doing the Moses function. He's doing the Moses-Mashiach function, which is what Nachman calls it. He is embodying the dialectic in his guf (Hebrew: body) and in his soul, sharing that with you today. You see! And that's exactly the Moses-Machiach function. He brings himself towards me, and if you watch that, if his voice is a "pure singer" (see Likutei Moharan, essay 3), like maybe it is today, if he's here and now and if he's believable, then his singing is infectious, and brings you with him. He is serving a prophetic function. But this is not new. This is old stuff! My friend Plato did the same thing. He called it "the poet", the possessed poet. The possessed poet in a poetic frenzy, like Wepner is today, infects the audience. You know what Plato called it? He called it a magnet. Plato used the example of a magnet. So Wepner here is the magnet, and you guys are the filings that he's magnetizing with his prophetic voice. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very good, Wepner! Franklyn, you get a gold star today. FW: Well, thank you, Mr. H. Nice to be appreciated, by you anyway. Not too many people around here appreciate me. Yep. I'm doing your job! The trouble is these dummies don't appreciate it. It's so simple. You see how simple it is. But they get lost in words! They don't believe in angels. They don't follow the Eglah. They don't follow the Bull. Instead of following the Bull, they follow the bullshit! BULLSHIT! And the elephantshit! And the turkeyshit. Every kind of shit, except doing the work. (i) INDUCTION AS TRANSLATION AND PRAYER Anyway, let's see. Did we do our job? We did our job today. We did two loops of the spiral, moved up two levels. By the way, this is not particularly Jewish either. This is basic dialectical philosophy, which comes from all over the world into Judaism. In Christianity they call it "translation". The Hebrew word, "l'ha'atik", has two meanings: "to shift" and "to translate". In other words, angels move up and down the ladder, the worlds, shifting the dialectic from level to level. It's also called in Hebrew "hishtalsh'lut" (literally, "chaining" or "making a chain"), moving up and down the tree of life from one level to the next, shifting or translating. The dialectic shifts from one level to the next. So this kind of dialectical motion is the Eglah, the Logos at work. Since it works oftentimes; therefore, we can use it consciously as prayer - like we did just now - based on faith that it will work and that Hashem will help us get there. Right? Mr. H: Yup!!! I did it, and you did it. Very good. See that? It worked. Even if we don't, even if we are not aware of doing it, it happens anyway. You know? At least it happens in certain senses, that can be seen in the world. Idealistic philosophers like Hegel look back and see the whole history of the universe in that way, but maybe that's a bit much. But at least we know that when we use it as a meditative process, in the context of what Nachman of Breslav and other Pietists would call "prayer", then it works. We begin in the here and now and start from the particulars (the weak gestalts) to get to the general ideas (the strong gestalts). We work our way up the ladder, doing inductive logic rather than deductive logic, which would goes down the other side, from the One to the Many. The Eglah symbolizes the entire dialectic, both sides. The concrete here an now experience of the combined deductive and inductive aspects is what Nachman labels the Eglah. The work of the Eglah combines the work of many lower level angels The Eglah is the highest level archangel, what Kabbalists label Metatron. (j) "LA-SHUR": TO GAZE, AND "SHOR", BULL There's another sense, point of view, b'hinah, from which Nachman uses the word for 'bull" in essay 7. Rather than the Aramaic word Eglah, he also invokes the usual word for "bull" in Hebrew, "shor", and it just so happens that this word "shor" has another, apparently entirely unrelated, meaning. "La-shur" in Hebrew means, "to gaze". What might be the relevance here of "la-shur", to gaze? Here we are now, having worked through two levels of the dialectic. First of all me and my mother, and second of all Tiberius and Yavniel, Finally we got to a higher point of view which somehow encompasses those struggles. So here we are on the top, gazing back. Now that that we have found our way out of them, now that Mr. H has helped us move up with his angel, we can say to ourselves, "how did we ever get stuck in those impasses in the first place?" And from this higher point of view of "gazing" perhaps we can appreciate the power of faith and prayer, at least the way that jargon is being used by Nachman of Breslav. And in this sense we are operating as a "tselem elokim", made in "the image of God", and identifying with the point of view of "Hashem rochev ahl aravot", riding on top of the wilderness. That's what God does. God is on top of the desert of dead forms that we're stuck in during our lives, as we play our games and do our trips. He's not in it. He's on top of it. Right, You're on top of it! Mr. H: Yuuuup!! Hooooo!! I like it up here! It's so nice up here. I don't want to deal with all that crap down there! You dummies! OK. You see? So, um . . . We're doing His process. FW: Right? Mr. H: Yup! (k) BRECHT AND STANISLAVSKI So we're working in the image of God. We're gazing down from His vantage point of being "rochev ahl aravot", hovering on, riding over, the aravah, the desert. Ok. That's one thing I want to say. Now, let's look at it from a different point of view. This stuff does not have to be religion in the usual sense in order to appreciate the concrete dialectic. You can do the entire process without calling it faith or prayer. You could call it other things. Maybe we should talk about that for a minute. Take the idea of "gazing". Here we are gazing with the wisdom of hindsight, gazing back at the path we followed. Eglah and shor, the dialectical path and the gazing back are two aspects of the same process, the "concrete dialectic. The dialectic is concrete because it's here and now dealing with real experiences, real awarenesses, contact experiences. It's concrete, concrete logic, concrete dialectic. Looking at it from this point of view of being on the top and looking back at the wasteland, this stuff can be art, aesthetics, Romantic or post-romantic aesthetics. Take a look, for example, at Brecht, Brechtian theater, which is in the Romantic tradition. Brecht called his theater "epic theater". Now an actor in the epic theater learns how to be "on top of his material". First, he puts together a bunch of forms into a complicated structure. The image track is doing one thing, the voice track is doing another thing. The body track is doing this, and the face doing that. He puts it all together into an interesting collage of stuff. And then he uses the image track objectively. He gazes at the image. "La-shur", remember? And with the power of that objectively he elevates himself above the subjectivity by means of which he was stuck in the pile of junk forms to begin with. He is now a free man. He can work in the here and now and comment on the junk collage. He can express his point of view towards it, rather than being stuck in that formalistic character that he created. The character, the junk collage serve now merely as a filter, and he, the performer, is like a light illuminating the pile of junk from various points of view. And so the character takes on a momentary, a here and now, a messianic now type existence. And all those creative sparks, those indeas, those hits, go right out to the audience. They think something wonderful and mystical is happening, when all he's doing is just the same old dialectic, the same old logos, the same old demiurge, whatever you want to call it, the shor, the eglah, dialectical thinking. He's doing the moment by moment syntheses which pop into his mind when he looks down at the array of antitheses that comprise the junk collage. Now compare that with Stanislavski. Stanislavski has the actor identifying with the character subjectively, in the character, lost in the character and trying to bring the audience into the character with him. And they all follow the big idea, the superobjective of the play which has been laid out by the playwrite and the director from the beginning. And there you have Chabad, on the other side from Breslav. Stanislavski and Aristotle are on one side, while Brecht and Plato - especially the post-Brechtian formalism of Mabou Mines Theater - are on the other side. So you see, you don't have to call this religion. You can call it art if you like. And I am sure there are parallel aesthetic things about painting, about literature. We don't have to call it religion. So if you want to get down on the religious people, you don't have an excuse. If you don't use stuff like this, you're just plain dumb, ignorant. Go sell shoes. (l) SUMMARY OK. Enough for one lesson today. This tape is going on for 44 minutes. That's probably too long. Just to review, we started off using projections to do hitbod'dut, by projecting ourselves onto different nature objects. As they say in Taoism, before you paint the branch, first become the branch. So we became the branch. We became the piece of plastic, the old piece of plastic lying here and the city of Tiberius out there, and that led us to some truth. It led us up the path, Jacob's Ladder. The Christians have a long tradition of using dialectical philosophy. They talk about having faith in a grain of mustard seed. Here we had faith in a little plastic bottle laying here. Then we found our way up the ladder towards Mr. H. Right? Mr. H: Ahh yep!! Come on up here. It's nice up here! Ha haaaaahh . . . FW: Well, we had a nice trip today. Thanks for the trip. Mr. H: No problem. No problem. Anytime, anytime. So we started off with those projections, and we worked our way up the Eglah, the concrete dialectic, the spiral, the tree of life, from Abraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov, the action, the middle pillar. It makes me think of Likutei Moharan essay number 1, where Nachman says, "a Yid has got to find the inner idea in any object", the inner idea that shines in every object. We took that little object, that piece of bottle, that plastic bottle, and we found the inner idea. What's the inner idea? It's the higher level of spirituality, the macrocosmic idea, the Platonic idea, or if you want to call it Mr. H, or whatever you like, but we followed that process and we did it using dialectical thinking. We found the inner idea in that little piece of broken bottle, and now we connected up at the same time the spirituality to my mother. We connected it to my mother, to all the objects that we illuminated today: Yavniel, Tiberius, even the motorcycle and the Brechtian theater were part of it. The point was to learn how to use projections creatively, spiritually, as an of hitbod'dut, and I believe we accomplished that. (m) WHO IS MR. H? Mr. H has been a part of our hitbod'dut process, in all the various forms of it which we have looked at. But can we pinpoint more specifically exactly what is his function along the way? Certainly he is not just another projection, like a broken bottle. Certainly he was not the demiurge, the Eglah, the concrete dialectic which provides a logical framework through which energies flowed. The Mr. H which I treated somewhat irreverently during my journey up Jacob's/Yaakov's Ladder was merely a stand-in, a place-holder, pointing towards the real Mr. H, that is to say towards Hashem, "the Name" which we are not supposed to say at all. Philosophically speaking, we may say - with the Jewish philosophers - that He is that which rides on top of the aravot, as has been explained. In the Pietist tradition of Nachman of Breslav, He is to be approached holistically, by means of both deductive cogitations and inductive experiences (prayer, faith, Gestalt, the arts, etc.), with an emphasis on the latter. As Nachman put it, "What else is there to do in this world, except to pray and study and pray?" ("Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom", #287)


19. [English Voiceover] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah(HA) - Press Conference - August 09, 2010

[English Voiceover] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah(HA) - Press Conference - August 09, 2010

The full text of the press conference held by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Monday August 9th, 2010 at Shahed Hall – Airport Highway In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the world. Peace be on the Seal of prophets - our Master and Prophet Abi Al Qassem Mohammad - and on his chaste and pure Household, chosen companions and all prophets and messengers. Brothers and sisters! Ladies and gentlemen! Peace be upon you all and Allah's mercy and blessing. First, I have promised to hold a press conference in which I present indications and data that open new horizons which help in accusing the Israeli enemy of assassinating martyr Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. This is exactly what I promised of, and I will fulfill my promise tonight Inshallah. Also since I made my announcement to this effect, comments from one party were issued: Why now? Why not years before? Why did you hide this data? Why are you unveiling it now and talking about it? Apart from the means, background and technique in which this issue was evoked – as we will talk seriously because we do not want to get engaged with each other – I will leave answering this question to the end of the press conference because the data which I will present will help, taking its nature and timing into consideration. That will help very much in answering this question. Indeed I must welcome all of you and thank you for this important and great attendance. It goes without saying that the event, the topic, the cause, the stage and the challenge necessitated on you this level of responsibility – and you are competent for this responsibility. Welcome then. I also thank all the media outlets that will show interest in what I will say and broadcast it live on air. As usual, there are several topics: I will try to be as quick as possible. I will talk also in classical Arabic to generalize the benefit abroad. I will be as quick as possible to make full use of time though the case deserves considerable time from all of us. The first topic: Israel's accusation of Hezbollah. This is an indispensable prelude. The Israeli enemy had been working on this since the very beginning and especially after the event of September 13th, 1993. All of us – all the Lebanese – know that on that very day Oslo Accord was inked. Hezbollah organized a protest in the southern suburb (Dahiyeh); it was opposed by the Lebanese government which was then under Premier Hariri. Fire was opened on the demonstrators; ten martyrs fell and more than 50 were wounded. At the time, a kind of political tension and conflict took place between Hezbollah and the first government of Premier Hariri and with Premier Rafiq Hariri in person. This is well known. The Israelis intruded through one of their agent at the time who contacted one of the security internals in the party of Premier Hariri. He worked at convincing him that Hezbollah is plotting to assassinate him and is now in the execution stage. He particularly accused brethren martyr Imad Mughniyeh and others of what he claimed and the data he gave. To comprehend the issue, I would like to present it in my way: Months after the event of September 13th, 1993, Syrian Intelligence and pursuant to a command by General Ghazi Kanaan, arrested one of the Islamic Resistance cadres in Sidon – namely brethren fighter Hajj Ali Deeb who is known as Abu Hassan Salameh and who was later killed by the Israelis. When you listen to the collaborator talking about Abu Hassan Salameh, he would be meaning brethren Ali Deeb. Brethren Ali Deeb was arrested in ambiguous unknown conditions. Days later, I knew that brethren Abu Hassan Salameh is in Anjjar. So I went to meet General Ghazi Kanaan, and I called on him to set free the brethren. He told me that he sent him that morning to Damascus and that the issue is in Damascus by now. I blamed him saying: What is the story? Has you summoned him from me for interrogation, you know that we would have responded. You know we respond in such issues especially if the case is sensitive. General Ghazi told me: (Indeed let no one say I am referring to deceased persons because the document exists and will be presented in a while) Some days ago, Premier Rafiq Hariri paid me a visit and told me: I have some data; there is a very close person to Hajj Imad Mughniyeh. He is either a politburo or one of the very close bodyguards to Hajj Imad. He attended a session (this reminds me of Zuheir Essedeeq) with Hajj Imad Mughniyeh and Abu Hassan Salameh among others whom he did not know by name. In the session, they plotted to assassinate you. The assassination will take place through ambushes which will be set for you in this road and on that road. He gave him some details. General Ghazi carries on saying: We can't remain silent on that because this is an assassination operation which is being set for the Premier. We can't contact Imad Mughniyeh but we can reach Abu Hassan Salameh. Thus we arrested him. I told him: Good. Six days of interrogation – allow me to say of "Anjjari" interrogation - during which the bones of Abu Hassan Salameh were 'crushed' so that he confesses and acknowledges of the incident but Abu Hassan used to tell them that is not true. This is sheer falsehood. He used to deny that absolutely. He was sent to Damascus, and he was interrogated there too. General Ghazi told me: The case is now in Damascus. I wrote then a letter to late President Hafiz Assad. He referred the case to General Ali Duba. (Now we are talking about alive persons). He called me to have a meeting with me. I went to meet General Ali. He got an investigation file. The result of the investigation in Damascus also was that the story is baseless. Indeed things took place then and there is no time to mention them now. Brethren Abu Hassan was set free and he returned to Beirut. Two years following this incident (which took place by the end of 1993 and early 1994) i.e. in 1996, the security of the Resistance was pursuing an Israeli collaborator who used to take shots of headquarters, houses and personalities in the southern suburbs of Beirut (Dahiyeh) and in the South. Finally the brethrens could arrest him. The name of the collaborator is Ahmad Nasrallah. He is not a relative of mine indeed because he is from another village. But now he is not a relative even of his own family because the collaborator does not belong to his father, mother and family. The interrogation with collaborator Ahmad Nasrallah was over photographing houses and headquarters. What did you photographed? What did you provide the Israelis with? The story of Premier Rafiq Hariri, General Ghazi Kanaan and Abu Hassan Salameh was not in our minds at all. However, in the process of the interrogation, he mentioned the story and we have as prolonged record of that. However due to the importance of the time element and the time limit, we will listen in a while to some of the confessions of this collaborator. He confessed and said: I contacted one of PM Hariri's internals and told him that I am close to Hajj Imad Mughniyeh. He also mentioned a name – Mohammad Afif – and said that he does not in fact know someone with this name. I gave him false illusionary information for several months. (See what this collaborator did. He used to demand on the security body of Premier Hariri to avoid moving on such and such highway because his information says that Hezbollah will ambush him there or place a booby-trapped car there, and tell them that he must take another highway. For an interval of time, he could control the movement of Premier Hariri's motorcade. He then quoted (And this is very serious) Abu Hassan Salameh as saying that during the session he suggested (And Abu Hassan is from Sidon so his suggestion is typically from Sidon too) that they may kill MP Bahiyeh Hariri. Then Premier Hariri will be obliged to come to Sidon to receive condolences and then they would kill him in Sidon. This is the complete fabrication which was presented by the Israeli collaborator to Premier Hariri's security body. Then I handed a copy of the tape to General Ghazi Kanaan, and the collaborator was also handed to the concerned security apparatuses. He was jailed until 2000. In February 2000 and before the liberation he was set free for reasons which I do not know. He fled within few days to the border line and thereof to Occupied Palestine and he is still there. His family followed him or he fled with his family and he is still there in Occupied Palestine where he works for recruiting Lebanese for the enemy. This is the beginning then. Collaborator Ahmad Nasrallah could, and following dictations from the Israeli enemy, implant this fabrication. So our story with false witnesses started a long time ago. Here is a biography for Ahmad Nasrallah and a sound bite for him: The report: Name: Ahmad Hussein Nasrallah Date and place of birth: Khiam, 1967. Nationality: Lebanese. He is an Israeli collaborator who resides currently in Occupied Palestine. He was arrested in 1996 and remained in jail until 2000 when he was set free on February 3rd, 2000. He fled to the occupied border line on February 14th, 2000 and thereof he fled to Occupied Palestine in May 2000. His family members came back from Occupied Palestine to Lebanon in groups via Naqura border gate. During his presence in Occupied Palestine, he partook in several recruitment operations for Lebanese to work for the enemy. He provided Premier Hariri with false information via one of the persons who work for PM Hariri: Illusionary information about Hajj Imad Mughniyeh; Hezbollah intends to assassinate Premier Hariri and had executed to this effect several unsuccessful attempts; a booby-trapped car is set and will target Premier Hariri - he eyed it on St. Michael crossing; Hezbollah has the intention of targeting Premier Hariri via persuading him to come to Sidon after brethren martyr Ali Deeb kills MP Bahiyeh Hariri in Sidon. Collaborator Ahmad Hussein Nasrallah (Sound bite): My name is Ahmad Hussein Nasrallah. I know a man who works for Rafiq Hariri since 1988 or 1989. He used to work at Al Hariri Institute near the house of my sister. On the day of the massacre of September 1993, I was going to visit my sister and the incident took place. He asked me what took place. What do you have to say? Was it a massacre? I told him they say that things are not going smoothly. They want to kill Rafiq Hariri. So if there was something against Hariri you may benefit from me. After a week or two, I saw him and told him it seems they are preparing something against Rafiq Hariri. He told me are you able to know anything to this effect? Can you make sure if there is something being prepared? I told him yes I can be sure. I can collect information whether there is anything prepared or not. After around a week or four or five days I saw him and told him there is a person whom we may benefit from. His name is Mohammad Afif who works with Imad Mughniyeh and who works in a security way. There is an attempt to kill Hariri. I told him what is the communication means between you and me – in case anything takes place? I took a date after a week so that he gives me a mobile phone. On that date he gave me a mobile phone. So in every time I used to tell him: There is a booby-trapped car and give him its descriptions. I used to tell him there is something prepared for Hariri. (Don't let your master go and come. Always warn him. I used to tell him at time where is you master? I used to know when there is a session for the government and tell him let your master be aware. There is a booby-trapped car on the way to Baabda. Let your master be aware. Once I told him that Imad Mughniyeh is going to Hamra if any one may watch him or anything of this sort. Once I told him the story of Bahiyeh – that there is an assassination attempt against Bahiyeh so if they kill Bahiyeh Hariri, Premier Hariri will visit Sidon. When he comes they will kill him while on the way to Sidon. This was set by Abu Hassan Salameh who lives in Sidon. Thus was the story of killing Bahiyeh. So whenever I go and come back from the South, I would tell him I saw the men of Abu Hassan Salameh on my way. As for Mohammad Afif, there is no one with this name. I fabricated this name for an illusionary guy who works with me and with Imad. As for Imad Mughniyeh I do not know him. I never in my life saw him but I hear of his name. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: This is evidence on the primary Israeli fabrication deluding Premier Hariri to this effect. It goes without saying that then we may suppose that the martyr Premier did not inform General Ghazi Kanaan only but also informed the rest of his friends in Syria, his close team, his French, Saudi, Gulf, European friends and others. Indeed one can't remain silent on such a critical issue. Thus the Israelis could implant in the minds of many that there is an illusionary conspiracy of this kind. We suffice ourselves with this extent and move to the second part. Second under the topic of Israel's accusation of Hezbollah: We found that the Israelis on February 14th, 2005 made haste and accused us of the assassination. Since the very beginning they stuck to this accusation for years until reaching Dir Spiegel and what follows Dir Spiegel. You have listened recently to Israeli comments on the issue. Still and also not to consume much of time, we will watch a brief report on some samples of Israel's accusations of Hezbollah. The Report: The Israeli accusation of Hezbollah – Statements made by Israeli officials and the comments of the Israeli media accusing Hezbollah of standing behind the crime. On February 14th, 2005, the Israeli Radio commented on the killing of Premier Hariri saying he had considerable conflicts with Hezbollah. On February 17th, 2005, Yadiot Ahranot published a report in which it mentioned the Military Intelligence Branch – Aman - as saying that the Branch has completed a new report which indicates that Hezbollah is the side responsible of liquidating former Lebanese Premier Rafiq Hariri. On February 17th, 2005, Amnon Dahan from Shas Party said that based on Aman report Hezbollah has assassinated Hariri and backed tightening the grip around Hezbollah and freezing its activities. Worth mentioning that journalist Amos Har'il wrote a report in Haartez on May 25th, 2010 and presented a file to Aman by the end of 2001 - i.e. three years before the assassination took place in which he expected that Hariri be assassinated on the hands of Hezbollah. War Minister Ehud Barak on May 24th, 2009 i.e. after Dir Spiegel Report, stressed that the STL has accused Hezbollah and not Syria. On May 29th, 2009, the military reporter of Jerusalem Post – Jacob Katz - quoted Barak as saying that it seems the UN report will reveal that Hezbollah is responsible of killing former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri. The enemy's Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermann on May 24th, 2009 and following Dir Spiegel Report stressed that an international arrest warranty must be issued against Nasrallah and he must be arrested by force and taken to for trial. On February 10th, 2010, Naenae news Website reported Liebermann as accusing Hezbollah of being responsible for killing Premier Hariri and said addressing Saad Hariri: My heart is with Hariri. Hezbollah organization killed his father. Thus he is a hostage. I believe that his views towards Hezbollah are by far better than ours. Sayyed Nasrallah: We suffice ourselves with this limit as regarding the first topic. Now I will move to the second topic which is our accusation of the Israeli enemy of being responsible of the assassination operation. Under this topic there are four subtopics. First: Israel has the capability. I do not believe we need to have evidence that Israel has the capability to carry out this type of operations and similar operations that took place in Lebanon especially following 2004. The Israeli enemy history is full of operations that targeted Lebanese leaders whether in Lebanon or abroad. However in Lebanon in particular we do not need to mention a lengthy list of names of those who were killed by the Israeli enemy. Perhaps one of the best arenas in which the enemy enjoys a high capacity to execute such assassination operations is Lebanon which comes after Occupied Palestine. It's better than any other country because of its geographical situation: there is a long territorial border and a long shore. When tackling the activities of the collaborators we will mention how Israelis enter via Lebanese shores and ports at times into Lebanon and stay for weeks and for various periods of time. So the Israeli enemy has the capacity and the opportunity as well. Today it is being revealed that the enemy has many collaborators in various specializations. That means that in any field they want, there are collaborators in Lebanon. This is what has been revealed so far, and what is not revealed yet is even greater. Second: The interest and the motive. In brief, this is a political analysis but it is based on decisive conclusions. Everyone knows that Israel's enmity to the Resistance in Lebanon is great, strong and bitter. It is as such towards all the resistance movements in Lebanon especially to Hezbollah. The Israeli enemy is interested in benefiting from any military or security or internal chance to exterminate the resistance or to disarm it at least. It is taken for granted also that Israel has animosity towards Syria because it opposes a comprehensive settlement with Israeli conditions which wastes Arab rights and because Syria sticks to its rights and protects the resistance in Palestine and protects and supports the resistance in Lebanon. Frankly speaking, Israel's problem with Syria when it was in Lebanon was not that Syria is running Lebanon or is practicing mandate over Lebanon or appoints the government… That's not Israel's problem. Israel's problem with Syria is that Syria used to support and back the resistance movements in Lebanon and in Palestine. I know and I am obliged to say that. I have previously said so but now I will say the following: President Bachar Assad had personally told me that in 2004 and few weeks before the issuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, that an Arab leader paid him a visit and informed him that the US and the international community do not mind keeping Syrian forces in Lebanon, (Here I would like to remind you of Al Arz (The Cedars) Revolution and uprising and all the political movements that took place then with the hope that through this political bustle the Syrian Forces would withdraw from Lebanon). So they do not mind that Syrian Troops remain in Lebanon but they have a problem in the troops transgressing Al Awali River and go deep into South Lebanon until reaching the international frontiers. There are also two conditions: The first condition: disarming Hezbollah and the second condition: disarming Palestinian camps. Assad answered then that the Resistance in Lebanon is part of strategic national security which no one may dispense with, and that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and could not disarm the camps. He returned with this response – meaning no. So Syria was negotiated to stay in Lebanon or to withdraw from it weeks before Resolution 1559 was issued. So it was necessary that a great event take place in Lebanon which might be exploited and invested to achieve these goals: Withdrawing Syria from Lebanon, besieging and isolating the Resistance before hitting it to disarm it. Thus was the great earthquake on February 14th, 2005. The assassination of PM Hariri came in this perspective and his blood was invested to withdraw Syria from Lebanon and it is now being used to besiege the resistance and to stage an aggression against it. This is the motive and the interest. Third: The Israeli technique: The Israeli technique in work. Tackling the Israeli technique in work will help us in understanding the indications, data and signs which I will present Inshallah. As for the Israeli method of operations, when the Israelis want to stage any security operation or a military operation with a security trait, they depend on several elements: First: Aerial surveillance: The Israeli enemy has various reconnaissance means: small and huge, and of various shapes and the most important of which is what the Lebanese know as the MK drone. Even the people in villages know the MK. A surveillance plane surveys the regions, roads, cities, houses, motorcades, the movement of individuals, gatherings, fortifications and the deployment of military forces and the like. Second: Technical Control: That means wiretapping devices, monitoring devices, cameras installed in various places and maximum benefit from mobile phones. Third: Field Surveillance through collaborators or spies or through Israeli commandos that descend to the land and make field surveillance and not being content with aerial scanning. Field surveillance provides detailed and at times precise information which may not be available through aerial surveillance. Fourth: Logistic support which means providing or admitting weapons, explosives, exploding apparatuses and transportation means to the field of the operation until reaching the execution stage Fourth: Here we will start talking about indications and data. Do the Israelis have a true security, intelligence operative activity since 2004 till now or not? Some used to deal with the issue as if the Israelis do not have an operative activity. Consequently, following every assassination that used to take place in the Lebanese arena, fingers used to point directly to Syria and Syria's allies or the so called Lebanese-Syrian joint security system. When we answer this question we may read and reach somewhere in comprehending the assassinations and the links between these operations and their taking place during the past years. We start with the collaborators. The majority of these collaborators were arrested in 2009 – 2010. For those who would like to ask me whether my information is new or old, I say that the security apparatuses started seriously arresting collaborators in 2009. Why is that so? This is another field for research. We start with the collaborators. I will talk about sample collaborators and their confessions not to Hezbollah but to the official Lebanese security bodies during official interrogation sessions. These collaborators were referred along with the interrogation records to the Public Prosecution. Some contents of the records were leaked and written in media outlets. However they were not taken into consideration as they ought to. We will take samples of collaborators. Following every collaborator, I will give a short comment to complete the idea. We start with the first collaborator: Report: We present for you the names of some collaborators who confessed of staging surveillance activities, explosions, communication operations, installing monitoring cameras as well as determining the places of persons whom the enemy assassinated in a direct way. Some of them also confessed of transporting explosives and requisites. -Collaborator Philipos Hanna Sader; He used to gather information about the President of the Republic and the Commander of the Army. Philipos Hanna Sader. Date of Birth: 1964. An Israeli collaborator. He started spying for the Israeli enemy in 2006 and was arrested in 2010 by the Lebanese security bodies. His role was to gather information about Lebanese military posts some of which for the Lebanese Army and collecting executive information about Lebanese political and military leaderships and figures. Prominent confessions: Following are the most prominent aims which the collaborator worked at pursuant to Israeli commands according to the information he presented: - His Eminence the President of the Republic General Michel Sleiman: information about his house in Amsheat; external descriptions, entrances, roads leading to it, how far it is from the shoreline, the duration which is needed to reach it on feet and by car from the shoreline, nearby parking. -Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji's: Information about his personal yacht. His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: If we considered for a while the mission which this collaborator – i.e. Sader - was asked to do, I must mention that field surveillance is an advanced step which precedes execution. That's because with this step the file of the operation is completed. It is followed with providing the capabilities and executing the operation. If the Israelis wanted general information about the house of the President of the Republic and its surrounding, they will be content with aerial surveillance. But in this case the collaborator is executing what the Israelis demanded on him to do. There is an Israeli official who operates him and calls on him to go and collect detailed and precise information about the house: the entrances, the surrounding… There is a very important thing which I would like you to keep in mind while watching the clips which have to do with the assassination of Premier Rafiq Hariri. It's the coastal shore. The Israelis are always interested in searching for a location for the operation which is near to the coastal shore. Thus they demanded from this collaborator to go to the shore and go on feet to the house of the President of the Republic to see how much time it consumes. Then they asked him to drive there to see how much time it consumes. Is this a survey to collect information for the fun of that or is it to perform an assassination operation in that area? This collaborator also confessed that he surveyed in details the yacht of the Army Commander which is in the port. Why did he inspect the yacht? Simply he might install a bomb or anything else in the yacht to target the Army Commander. Here I would like to stop for a while. This has not remained a secret in Lebanon. It was published in some newspapers. It was mentioned in the interrogation, sealed and referred to the Public Prosecution. How did this event pass in the country? Suppose that the Lebanese security bodies have arrested a Lebanese person who claimed that the Syrian Intelligence has charged him of a mission of this kind or that Hezbollah has charged him of a mission of this kind. How would be the situation in the country then? But since the Israelis are accused, the case was wrapped in 24 hours. Media outlets mentioned that for one day and the story was over. But who are the persons who are the target of the surveillance? They are the President of the Republic and the Lebanese Army Commander and not ordinary figures in the country. I want to put the basis to be careful with the rest of the collaborators and their revelations. Why did not the International Investigation Committee meet with this collaborator and with the others who have made similar confessions? Maybe it might find a link between this collaborator and the operating official and other collaborators who were involved in similar operations. A liar false witness came to Lebanon; based on his testimony, four senior officers and other persons from Abdul Aal family and from other respectable families were hurled in prison for four years. Senior Syrian officers were summoned to Vienna and were interrogated there as well as in Damascus. Still such a piece of information along with scores of similar revelations from collaborators do not necessitate on the international community or from the Lebanese government or from anyone in this world to ask for an interrogation with the Israeli officers who operate these collaborators to see what they are doing in the Lebanese arena, whom they want to kill after the figures the already killed. This is only a point for consideration. I hope you will keep that in mind while presenting the rest of the collaborators. Also keep in mind the places the Israelis ask about their proximity from the coastal shore. We move to another collaborator. Report: Collaborator Said Tanios Alam He was charged of gathering information about Samir Geagea and Premier Saad Al Hariri. Name: Said Alam Date of birth: 1958 Nationality: Lebanese. An Israeli collaborator. He started working for the Israelis in 1990. He was arrested in 2009 by the Lebanese security bodies. Informative role: He was charged of collecting executive information about official political and party figures. Most prominent confessions: Following are the most prominent aims which the collaborator worked at pursuant to Israeli commands according to the information he presented: - PM Saad Al Hariri: Determining the times in which he attends at the house of Samir Geagea. - The Head of the executive body in Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea: Monitoring his movements in Al Arz – The Cedars – especially the movement of his motorcade; Monitoring his movements after leaving Al Arz; Determining the frequency by which some politicians visit coffee shops in Byblos. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: This is the second collaborator as you might have noticed. The Israeli operating officers charged him of collecting field and detailed information about who? Hezbollah leaderships? No. rather about LF Chief or the Head of the executive body in the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea: while in Al Arz, after leaving Al Arz. In the interrogation report there are other details which we do not want to spend our time talking about. He was charged of determining when PM Saad Hariri visits Samir Geagea. Why does Israel want to monitor Samir Geagea? Why does Israel want to monitor PM Saad Hariri when he visits Samir Geagea? Why? This question is to be posed on everyone, and let everyone answer this question. This is an answer to all those who ask why March 14 leaders are being killed. That's because it was demanded that March 14 leaders be killed so that the blame would fall on Syria and its allies and the Resistance. The last confession is information about the frequency of visits paid by some politicians to the coffee shops in Byblos. As far as I know it is not Mohammad Fneish, Mohammad Raad or Sheikh Naim who go to the coffee shops in Byblos. Indeed our brethrens in the National Free Party go to Byblos. However most of those who go to Byblos are from March 14 Bloc. So the collaborator is charged of monitoring the coffee shops and who visits frequently these coffee shops. What is the nature of this surveillance? Why does the Israeli operative charge him of that? The third collaborator. Report: Collaborator Mahmoud Rafea. Date of Birth: 1949. Nationality: Lebanese An Israeli collaborator. He started collaboration in 1993. He was arrested in 2006 by the Lebanese security bodies. His most prominent confessions: - Partaking in four assassination operations which targeted martyrs Ali Deeb, Jihad Jibril, Ali Saleh and brothers Majzoub. - Partaking in installing several bombs between 1999 and 2005 such as Naemeh bomb in 1999 and Zahrani bomb in 2005. - Receiving, lodging, helping and transporting a number of Israeli groups inside the Lebanese territories. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: Now we come to collaborator Mahmoud Rafea. He targeted leaderships in the Resistance. He officially confessed of that. Just to make the Arab viewers acquainted with this piece of information as the Lebanese know that: the Military Court issued a death penalty against this collaborator. He confessed of all the crimes he perpetrated. Here I would like to stress two points: The first point is Zahrani bomb. In the concluding section and as pertaining to the technical aspect which we would reach we wanted to tackle this issue for a while. But after more scrutiny it was revealed that this topic deserves not to be squeezed and handled briefly in this press conference. We believe that Zahrani bomb which was installed by the end of 2005 but the army intelligence discovered and dismantled it was targeting Speaker Nabih Berri. Indeed Mahmoud Rafea does not know whom does the bomb target, and I believe him because he is just an executive person. He is demanded to transport the bomb and at times help in installing the bomb but he later and after the bomb explodes knows whom did it target. To this extent their masters and operatives belittle them. This bomb was highly critical and dangerous. Its report and shots exist. Some of these shots were published in the media. The bomb is 100% Israeli and Mahmoud Rafea confessed of that and the bomb itself bears witness of that from the technical perspective. This indicates that the Israelis - whom in our opinion killed the Sunni Premier Rafiq Hariri early in 2005 but failed to evoke a sedition which they wanted to ignite between the Shiites and the Sunnites in Lebanon - plotted to assassinate the Shiite Speaker so that this sedition works but Allah protected Lebanon again. I hope the Zahrani bomb topic remains in your minds. Maybe one day we would say very important things about it. The second point which took place in 2005 and which we must take into consideration is that Mahmoud Rafea confessed of receiving, lodging, helping and transporting a number of Israeli groups inside the Lebanese territories. He used to receive the groups but he did not know where they go and what they do. They remain for a period of time then come back and he would carry them to the sea or to the barbed wire between Lebanon and Occupied Palestine. Now did the International Investigation Committee (and I do not want to turn the meeting to a condemnation for the International Investigation Committee. I am only saying this incidentally) ask Mahmoud Rafea about these Israelis whom he used to receive in the Lebanese territories and whom other collaborator also confessed of receiving: What did they do in Lebanon? Noteworthy that such operations took place in that year which witnessed a great number of indications. Would the officers who operated Mahmoud Rafea and the groups which were received in Lebanon be summoned by the International Investigation Committee? We move to the next collaborator. Report: Collaborator Nasser Nader: Date of Birth: 1965. Nationality: Lebanese An Israeli collaborator. He started collaboration in 1997. He was arrested in 2009 by the Lebanese security bodies. His most prominent confession is partaking with the executive group which assassinated martyr Ghaleb Awali in Dahiyeh in 2004. Worth mentioning the collaborator used to reside in Jal Al Deeb. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: This collaborator is an executive partaker. I do not know where the serious interrogation with him reached in other perspectives especially that he is a Muslim and a Shiite from the South but used to live in Jal Al Deeb pursuant to a request from Israeli Intelligence to perform his missions. This evokes several questions. Still here I would like to comment saying that on the very day on which brethren Ghaleb Awali was martyred, a statement under the name of Jund Al Sham adopted the assassination of Ghaleb Awali. This reveals that the mind of the Israelis is too small. They wanted to convince Hezbollah that so called Jund Al Sham Organization – which existed then – assassinated Awali. That means they wanted to accuse a Sunnite organization of killing a Shiite cadre in the Resistance. The next collaborator. Report: Collaborator: Faisal Muqaled Date of Birth: 1977. Nationality: Lebanese An Israeli collaborator. He started collaboration in 2003. He was arrested in 2006 by the Lebanese security bodies. His most prominent confession was transporting back and forth Israeli executive members through the sea. Some of these members used to stay in Lebanon for several weeks. He used to transport huge black bags and logistic materials in addition to some weapons. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: What we said a while ago applies on this collaborator - transporting groups in 2006. These groups used to remain for weeks in the Lebanese territories. He used to carry them to and back to the sea. What did these groups use to do? Did they gather information? Do Israelis lack collaborators and spies to collect information so that they be obliged to dispatch members from the Mosad or from the Israeli Army to the Lebanese territories to stay there for weeks? This collaborator along with other collaborators confessed of receiving black bags which hold explosives or weapons and the like. They used to put them in definite places or hideaways in Mount Lebanon and return after a duration of time to find that these bags were transferred and they used to put in their places other bags which the Israelis handed them. The next collaborator: Report: Collaborator Adib Alam Date of Birth: 1942. Nationality: Lebanese An Israeli collaborator He started in collaboration in 1994. He was arrested in 2009 by the Lebanese security bodies. Most Prominent confessions: -He surveyed and took pictures for several Lebanese coastal and mountain regions and roads. -He partook with his wife collaborator Hayat Slumi in surveillance operations as a prelude to one of the assassination operations – namely the assassination of brothers Al-Majzoub. -He brought along into Lebanon several intelligence apparatuses and materials. -He provided the enemy with a number of mobile phones numbers and recharging cards. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: I will wrap up the part which has to do with the collaborators. As for this collaborator, what I said before applies on him. These collaborators made confessions before the official Lebanese apparatuses under the current state and not for the Syrian mandatory state or for the joint Lebanese-Syrian Security system. These collaborators made their revelations and what we presented is just a simple sample of the many collaborators. I call that a definite side collect the confessions of these collaborators and draw a diagram of their work in various sectors, regions, places and specialties. Then let this side make a deep scrutiny of the active movement of the collaborators especially in the past few years whether on the information level or on the operational level. Whoever wants to know who assassinated Premier Hariri and who was behind the various assassinations and explosions that took place in Lebanon must start from here and not from the false witnesses. Fifth: The communication file. I have only two words to say to this effect. In the light of arresting important collaborators in the communication field and their confessions, it is decisively confirmed that the Israeli enemy has very great technical control on the communication field. So the enemy does not need to operate these collaborators in a detailed way because the technical services offered by these collaborators are enough to enable the Israeli enemy to achieve whatever he wants through the sizable capacity of the technical services. This must be tackled by specialists. The decisive conclusion is that Israelis have technical control on the Lebanese arena especially on the field of communication. Through the mobile phone they might tap on any person or target. They might tap about his surrounding and decide his place with precision and his movement very accurately should they want to target him in an assassination operation. This is a new given which has become decisive following the latest arrests and the disclosure of the communication sector before the enemy. Sixth: Here we come to the very sensitive point. It is aerial surveillance. This is the cornerstone in all what Israel perpetrated and perpetrates on the Lebanese arena. As I said at the very beginning, the Israelis have well known high capabilities in this field. They have various kinds of reconnaissance drones. They have drones that scan and execute at the same time. Israel is one of the most important countries that manufacture reconnaissance drones. It even sells drones to Turkey, Russia, and India among other countries around the world. That's because in this perspective it has high technical and technological development. So in Lebanon Israelis scan the target locations whether a house or a road or the motorcade and the paths it frequently drives through. So they depend on aerial surveillance as a cornerstone and wrap their case at times with some detailed data through field surveillance if they needed that. Now we come to the secret I want to reveal tonight. Indeed I am revealing it to the public opinion. As for the Israelis, we believe that after Ansariyeh Operation, they analyzed and evaluated the whole matter and took several procedures. Now I will mention things in details. Prior to 1997, the Islamic Resistance in the South and through a definite technical effort was able to catch the transmission of an Israeli spy plane (MK) photographing several places in South Lebanon and sending them directly to an Israeli operations center. Transmission means that the spy plane through a wireless technique could transmit directly (exactly like live broadcasting) to an operation center in Occupied Palestine. The brethrens managed to access this transmission. Consequently while the footages and the photographs are transmitted live to the enemy's operation center, they are at the very moment being received to the Resistance operation center. That was a technical achievement by the Resistance men – by Lebanese men who graduated from Lebanese schools and institutions. Well, we kept this to ourselves and started receiving the captured footages and photographs. At the beginning I confess (as we are realistic and objective as well), things were difficult because interpreting these footages and photographs needed specialization which was not sufficiently available. Even more, interpreting these footages needs direct acquaintance with the land. It also needs to compare the satellite scanning and the footage to identify that this footage is in this village, in this region, in this road, in that city or in other locations. No one may understand these footages directly even if he intercepted these footages and recordings. That needs specialization and professionalism as well as capabilities which were not sufficiently available. Second: Our technical capacities didn't give us the opportunity to intercept all what all spy planes transmit at a time because as you know several spy planes used to fly over South Lebanon at a time. At the same time other spy planes would come over Dahiyeh, Beirut, the North and Bekaa. In fact we did not have the capability to intercept everything. We used to receive things and there were things which we used not to receive. I also believe that following Ansariyeh incident (the major operation in Ansariyeh), the Israeli enemy took precautionary measures and encoded the transmission. So some of what they used to capture was transmitted by the spy planes encoded to the operation centers. Then we used to face the problem of decoding. At times they used to make uuencoded transmissions. Then we used to understand exactly what was taking place. So the clear footages are understood while the encoded footages posed a problem. Following this prelude I say that the brethrens intercepted footages captured by an Israeli spy plane (What you will watch in a while). They were footages from the shore moving towards the orchids. The spy plane moves over a definite way before reaching a blacktopped road that leads to the village of Ansariyeh. However at the first encounter, we did not know where that is. But since it is in the South and because our cadres are from the South we gathered to find out for which region these footages are. Well the satellite footage which exists now was new to us then, and we used to depend on rural human expertise. Well brethrens, let's see where this image is and in which village especially that we have a key element which is the shore whereof one might commence to reach that region. We could know the location scanned by the enemy drones and the roads it focused on. We started analyzing as we had no given. Will the Israelis stage an operation in that region? We supposed that they will stage an operation. So on that road that leads to that location we installed several ambushes, and our men remained there for several weeks. I will not specify the duration but I will say for several weeks. One long dark night, on September 5th, 1997, an Israeli Commandos came from the sea - It was a naval commandos - and moved on the very surveyed road. They remained moving on all night long until they reached one of the ambushes set by our men. The confrontation took place there. Bombs were detonated. It seems that the Israelis were also holding bombs and that was what led to their killing. As much as I remember, they were 15. Twelve were killed on the spot. Two were wounded. There remained one who contacted the support group. There was also a support group somewhere else. (You will watch it in the clip). Israeli helicopter intervened to rescue whoever remained and to evacuate the bodies. Well, in that dark night, they possessed night vision while we didn't. That reason somehow was behind the enemy's superiority. They could evacuate the bodies and the wounded. There remained some limbs which we negotiated on later… You will also watch footages taken by a reconnaissance plane that intervened and captured footages for helicopters which were trying to assist the support group. Indeed we could not film the operation field directly. Indeed there must be an MK drone which was filming the combat and Al Ansariyeh Operation scene directly. Now we will watch the clip. Indeed we do not have enough time to present everything. We will present the part necessary for us to build on for the rest of our speech. Footages from Ansariyeh Operation: Report: September 5th, 1997. The footage shows Ansariyeh village and the point of landing of the Israeli Commandos on the shore. Then we see their path until reaching the point of clashing and the landing of the helicopter. The Israeli spying plane which signal the Islamic Resistance intercepts monitors the landing point, the path of the commandos until reaching the clashing point. The arrow shows the path which is a side road between the orchids which leads to the Ansayriyeh-Lubyeh Road where the clashes took place. The clashing point was at the gate of the orchid where the Islamic Resistance ambushed the antagonistic force. Here we see Ansariyeh-Lubyeh main road. The circle shows the location where the rescue and evacuation plane landed. These are the operation footages broadcasted by the media. The helicopter is evacuating the soldiers. They appear moving towards it. These are the footages captured by the Israeli spy plane and which the Resistance intercepted: a group of soldiers gathering in a circular way near the helicopter landing spot; another helicopter landed and is evacuating soldiers. They are carrying the body limbs and the wounded. The enemy soldiers move towards the helicopter. The helicopter has the soldiers on its board. Inside the circle appears the area were the rockets fired by the Islamic Resistance fell to block the rescue operation. This is a satellite footage and the other footage is captured by the spying plane to the same path starting with the landing point to the clashing point. Both footages coincide: the clashing point at the gate of the orchid; the landing of the helicopters near the road between Ansariyeh and Lubyeh; the point where the shells fired by the Resistance fell. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: What does this conclusion mean? That means first that it gives an authenticity to this tactic. It asserts that the surveillance of the path leading to this place was a prelude to a security operation – a commandos security operation. So far we do not know for sure the aim of the operation. Next to that road there is a water path above which there is a small bridge. Did they want to put a bomb underneath to target the Resistance cadres who might move on that road, or did they want to kidnap one of the Resistance leaderships. That is left for scrutiny. However, this is a sample on which we will build. To confirm this idea we will give two samples only due to the time limit or else we have several examples of Israeli aerial surveillance that were preparing for assassination operations. Israeli drones used to scan the location and the building and also survey other locations which later are revealed to be the places in which they install the bomb to assassinate these men. Now we have footages taken by the spy planes. Indeed we must hint to an important point. Filming does not mean that the operation will take place after one, two or three days. At times it might continue for months or for years, and surveillance is repeated twice and thrice. In the two clips we will present two you, there are footages for the preparation stage but we do not have footages for the brethren's motorcade or for his car which was targeted at the time of detonation. That's despite the fact that an MK drone was there in the skies during the detonation but maybe it might be transmitting encoded images which remained problematic to us. Thus what we will present is but the preludes which the Israelis depended on to execute the assassination operation later on. The first sample is for the preparation for the assassination of martyr Abu Hassan Salameh or oppressed brethren Ali Deeb whom we talked about a while ago. Report: Monitoring Martyr Hajj Ali Deeb (Abu Hassan Salameh) in 1997. A satellite footage for the City of Sidon: It shows the place of work of Martyr Ali Deeb in Abra region near the Evangelists Girls School. It also shows the path the Martyr used to travel along towards the city of Sidon until reaching the targeting point. The spying plane monitors the house of Martyr Abu Hassan in Ghaziyeh. In Abra region the spying plane monitors the martyr's working place. This monitoring lasted for two years before executing the assassination operation on August 16th, 1999 through installing a bomb near Abra-Sidon road. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: Indeed we are being brief to gain time because we still have the important section. The second sample is for the first and second preparations for the assassination of Martyr Mahmoud Majzoub. So we have the first surveillance and the second surveillance because in the second operation he was martyred. Report: Monitoring Martyr Mahmoud Al Majzoub in 1998: The city of Sidon: The satellite footage shows the house of Martyr Mahmoud Al Majzoub inside the city. This is the house of Martyr Al Majzoub monitored by the spying plane. It is monitoring the cars near it. Following this surveillance, a bomb was installed in his car. Then it was detonated; his wife and son were wounded. A spying plane monitors the working place of martyr Al Majzoub. It also monitors the cars in the surrounding. The enemy intelligence could assassinate him with his brother Nidal on Friday May 26th, 2006 i.e. after 8 years of industrious work to target him. Worth mentioning that collaborator Mahmoud Rafea confessed of having an essential role in this operation in which officers from the enemy intelligence partook in addition to the runaway collaborator Hussein Khattab. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: Following this presentation, I move to what is linked to martyr PM Rafiq Hariri. However, a short lead in is indispensable. Following the martyrdom of MP Hariri, I visited his family in Kraitim and I met with the whole family who were gathering. The family called on me that Hezbollah help in the investigation within its available capabilities. We then formed a joint committee in which some leaders in Hezbollah partook. The family of martyr PM Rafiq Hariri was represented then by Mr. Wissam Al Hassan before he headed the Information Branch. The crime scene was reviewed. Even more, the committee was provided with data about the movement of PM Hariri as Al Hassan was the head of PM Hariri's bodyguards: his motorcade, the paths he used to follow, the places he used to head for… A primary study was set then on the operation. However political developments took place in the country and everything was over at that limit. The country moved towards accusing Syria, the officers, the joint Lebanese-Syrian security system… Then came Dir Spiegel and the false witnesses were revealed. The four officers were set free, and the accusation headed in another direction. For those who blame me for talking based on articles in newspapers I say: Lebanese political leaderships heard from political leaderships in various place around the world what I mentioned. They heard what I mentioned months before. So we formed a team and this is what I mentioned in my previous speech. It is really a special team. We told them: Brothers let's sit down and search seriously. When the information became available that gave us a strong indication to the effect of the Israeli methodologies. Collaborators who surveyed or had active participations in the execution of operations might have been pulled out of the country knowing that a great number of collaborators fled during the past few years. The Israelis might have as well taken precautionary measures and pulled out these collaborators, and there remained the collaborators who are carrying on their work. Those who were arrested were involved in executing operations that took place mainly in 2006. One of the ideas which were presented by that committee was that well we have archives. Some are clear to us for various regions. We used to record but we used not to follow up because our priority was the Resistance headquarters, leaderships and axes. So let's go back to the archives to the period that preceded February 14th, 2005. Let's search among these films and try to compare them to the map of the movement of martyr Rafiq Hariri: the motorcade, the places he used to go to… Is there any aerial surveillance to these places? Might the surveillance indicate that it had executive features or not? We remained working for almost a year, and here we confess that in the past few weeks the brethrens came under great pressure as we were still with the first section of the material. We were still reviewing many of these films. In fact the brethrens spent hundreds of hours reviewing these films and searching in them as it goes without saying that we needed satellite films and persons who are acquainted with the various Lebanese regions especially that we were not closely acquainted with some regions. Through this study we reached very important and remarkable conclusions. That was what I meant with indications and given. If we added what we reached to the antecedents which we tackled before we go towards accusing Israel. We will present footages for surveillances carried out by the Israeli enemy the majority of which and the most important of which are above Beirut. The footages which we will present to you are indeed not all the documents we possess. That in fact needs long time. They are rather samples for Israeli surveillance done at various times. So they are not all taken in one time but over an interval of time - meaning from late 90s to the early 2000 until 2005. You will also notice as you watch that the scanned location is monitored from various and different perspectives. That means it was not captured as a matter of chance or to collect general information. Rather when they approach some turns and some definite locations from various perspectives and from various places that means – according to experts – that it was an executive preparatory surveillance. What we will present first has to do with Beirut. The second clip pertains to the path linking between Beirut and the resort of PM Hariri in Fakra region. The third footage has to do with Sidon. I would like to take into consideration also that the Israeli enemy especially in the footages of Beirut and the path to Fakra takes extra care in turns. That's because when there is a motorcade and armored cars, it goes without saying that when they reach a turn, the cars will slow down for sure. This is called a mortal spot. I have expertise in that because I used to ride in such motorcades. Notice the surveillance of turns from various perspectives especially the turns which are adjacent to the coastal shore. Do you still remember what we said on surveying the house of the President of the Republic Michel Sleiman? First we will watch the Israeli aerial surveillance of Beirut City: Report: Israeli spying planes surveying several places in the city of Beirut. A satellite footage for the city of Beirut and the circles show the castle of PM Rafiq Hariri in Kraitim, the governmental castle in Sanaea, the new governmental castle and the point where PM Hariri was targeted. We see a general footage for the governmental castle in Sanaea. The Israeli drone monitors and films the castle in Sanaea. The previous governmental castle is monitored while focusing on the surrounding roads in the direction of Al Hamra Street and in the opposite direction near Sanaea Park. This is a general footage for the new governmental castle, Najmeh Square and the Parliament. Thereof the camera moves to make a complete survey of the coastal sidewalk starting from St George Hotel until reach Raouche. Later and after targeting PM Hariri, it was made clear that he used to pursue two paths more than others when heading towards the Parliament and his castle in Kraitim while following more the coastal road. First: from St. George to the AUB Beach in Al Manara to the Military Beach to Dbeibo to KFC intersection towards Shatila street which is considered a main entrance to Kraitim and Hariri's castle. The second path starts with Bliss Street until reaching the Sportive Club facing the Military Beach where the path hereof coincides with the first path until reaching Kraitim and Hariri's castle. It is possible to reach the first path through the coastal highway or through Phoenicia descend. Here we return to the coastal road. The Israeli drone monitors the coastal road from the AUB Beach towards St. George then Ain Mreisseh until reaching St. George Hotel where PM Hariri was targeted. These footages were captured by the drone at various dates. It monitors the same place where MP Hariri was targeted. The point where MP Hariri was targeted is monitored from various perspectives and at various times. The red circle shows the targeting point. This is the continuation of the first path. The circle shows Al Manara Turn. The drone surveys the new Al Manara (Lighthouse) Turn between Riviera Hotel and the Military Beach. It scans road corners precisely and at various dates and from various perspectives. This is another footage for the New Lighthouse Turn from another perspective and at a different time. This is also a footage monitoring the coastal road from the AUB Beach until reaching the new Lighthouse Turn towards the Military Beach. This is the continuation of the first path until reaching Dbeibo Turn which is encircled. It is also an appropriate point to execute the targeting. The drone's surveying camera monitors Dbeibo Turn also at various times and from various perspectives. This is the continuation of the first path until reaching Kraitim and the circle shows an appropriate point to execute the targeting. This is a detailed scanning taken by the drone while focusing on KFC intersection at the entrance of Kraitim from Raouche. As for the second path it commences with Clemonso Street passing in front of the AUB through Bliss Street until reaching the Sportive Club. The circles show the appropriate points to execute the targeting. Here near the Military Beach the first and the second paths meet on the coastal highway. Here the enemy's drone focuses on the road with precision and further focuses on the appropriate points for execution. Here is a continuation of the path until reaching Dbeibo Turn followed by the entrance of Kraitim and KFC interception then PM Hariri's castle in Kraitim. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: I have an important question on what we watched and what we will watch in a while. In all the regions which the Israelis survey, do you know that there are headquarters for Hezbollah or the Resistance or houses for Hezbollah leaderships or gathering points for Hezbollah? Why are the Israelis then following this track especially the turns and intersections leading to Kraitim? Have you noticed how long did they pose and focus on these locations? Indeed I reiterate that these were captured at different times. The St George spot was monitored from various perspectives and at different times especially at the point which is nearest to the coastal shore what gives the Israeli a very high capacity to execute an operation. Also keep in mind: Is this merely accidental? Is this a chance and another chance and another chance? There are coincidences which are tackled by some and on which an indictment is being fabricated. So are these chances also acceptable to be adopted by the investigation to build on an indictment? This is as far as Beirut City is concerned. PM Hariri used to leave Beirut towards Fakra where there is his resort. Here we will watch Israeli surveillance of the obligatory path. That means whoever wants to go from Beirut to Fakra has to take this binding path and pass through a specific turn in particular. Report: The enemy spying plane monitors the northern exit of Nahr AlKalb Tunnel that leads towards Junyeh. It focuses its monitoring on the cars moving northward. The spying plane films generally Junyeh- Dbaiyeh area. The camera moves around before reaching the region of Ouon Siman- Fakra-Farayeh which is covered with snow. The spying plane monitors in particular Yassou Al Malak Turn on an ascending road. This path is pursued by those heading towards Farayeh-Fakra. The satellite footage shows the path leading to the Yassou Al Malak Turn on an ascending road. Worth mentioning that this is a binding path to reach Fakra as there is no other path from the coastline road. This road was usually pursued by Martyr PM Rafiq Hariri when heading towards Fakra. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: In that area and at that turn in particular, is there any Resistance figures? No one from the resistance lives there or visits that area frequently or travels on that path. Are we to say it is a path used by Hezbollah to transfer ammunition? It's not so as well. Is it a road traveled by Hezbollah leaderships? Indeed not. So why and for whom are this road, turn and curve which is near the shore being monitored. Let's watch the last clip which has to do with Sidon City. You will notice that the camera monitors a main road and does not move towards a definite center. Indeed the footage starts before Awali River and even before Jiyeh and moves until reaching Sidon. It chooses the road and moves until it reaches the surrounding of the house of Mr. Shafiq Hariri. At other times it returns to monitor the house of Mr. Shafiq Hariri from various perspectives. So the aim of the drone's movement is to survey the road that leads directly to that house. It did not go to any intersection or any other direction which leads to a headquarter for the Resistance or to the Popular Organization or the Islamic Jamaa or to the house of any of the leaderships. So it is clear that the target of the surveillance is to monitor that path in particular. Report: The spying planes also monitored the highway between Beirut and Sidon. This clip shows the highway in Jiyeh. The spying plane monitors the traffic. This is Al Awali Bridge. Here the drone starts monitoring the entrance to Sidon, then the roads inside Sidon and the traffic. This is the coastline highway and Sidon entrance. It carries on monitoring towards Najmeh Square. The is Zaateri Mosque. Here the Israeli drone reaches over Najmeh Square. It moves towards Elia Round. It's remarkable that the drone moves towards the house of Shafiq Hariri, the brother of the martyr PM. The Israeli drone monitors the house of Mr. Shafiq Hariri and the surrounding streets. It also monitors its entrance. The footage focuses on a car about to leave the house. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: That is as far as the technical side is concerned. We consider that these footages and clips which were captured at different times, for different locations and from various perspectives can't be a matter of coincidence. If you put in the hands of any group of experts this given, they will confirm for you that whoever is carrying this surveillance is preparing the part that constitutes the first leg of the execution of an operation. I still have two rapid indications. The first sign comes as the seventh topic: the enemy's aerial movement on the day of the assassination. Allow me not to reveal a secret. I promised to reveal one secret. I can not bear disclosing two secrets. But if one day we were before a serious responsible investigation, I will have no problem then in revealing the other secret. We have confirmed information – we could collect confirmed information - related to the Israeli enemy aerial movement on February 14th, 2005 whether it has to do with the AWACS on which we will feature a report in a while or with the Israeli air force or other movements which has to do with the Israeli aerial movement. You know that if an AWACS drone is over a region facing the Lebanese shore, this drone would then be equipped with the capacity to tap, to technically control and to lead operations. So let's watch this report on the aerial movement together: Report: On February 13th, 2005, Israeli spying planes flying over Sidon and its surroundings accompanied by war planes hovering over the regional waters adjacent to Sidon coastline from 10:40 to 1:45. Hours before the assassination of PM Hariri, an Israeli drone was surveying the Sidon-Beirut-Junyeh coastline passing over the Capital Beirut as Israeli warplanes were flying over the regional waters adjacent to Beirut from 8:45 to 11:55 pm. On Monday February 14th, 2005 from 9:20 to 11:15 an interrupted warplanes movement was recorded in the Lebanese airspace. From 10:00 to 2:30, an AWACS plane was flying adjacent to the Lebanese coastline reaching Beirut. From 10:30 to 12:40 spying planes and signal and electronic intelligence war planes were active adjacent to the Lebanese coastline until reaching the Beirut. Worth mentioning, the explosion which led to the killing of martyr PM Rafiq Hariri took place at 12:56 pm. A day after the explosion, Israeli warplanes were recorded flying from Tyr till Sidon until reaching the regional waters adjacent to Beirut from 11:09 am to 12:18 pm. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: Any international investigating side may receive this schedule for the Israeli movement if the Israelis themselves are ready to confess. They may also receive it from friendly states which have radars in the region which may record and monitor the whole aerial movement which took place then. Through a serious investigation, the validity of this schedule may be verified. We are sure of this evidence, or else we do not risk and feature anything we are not sure of its validity. The last sign is something new even to us. In the past few weeks another evidence became available to us that one of the executive collaborators – Ghassan Al Jid who had harbored an executive team which had to do with the assassination of Martyr Ghaleb Awali (or Martyr Ali Saleh) in his house – was present at the scene of the operation in St George on February 13th, 2005. Indeed we have gathered information about this collaborator since a period of time and submitted them to the Lebanese security bodies especially to the effect of his involvement in the assassination of Martyr Ghaleb Awali (or Martyr Ali Saleh) before having the data related to his presence in St. George area on February 13th, 2005. However this collaborator fled from Lebanon before the Lebanese security bodies arrest him. Report: The movement of spies that coincided with the assassination: One of the most dangerous executive collaborators – Ghassan Gorges Al Jid - was present at the crime scene on February 13th, 2005 i.e. one day before the assassination of Hariri. Name: Collaborator Ghassan Gorges Al Jid Nationality and date of birth: Lebanese – 1940. An Israeli collaborator who started collaboration in the early 90s. He fled Lebanon in 2009. His security role: Receiving and evacuating Israeli intelligence members at the Lebanese shores and the territorial borders. Most of these members enter stealthily to execute logistic executive missions such as transferring bombs and black bags. He also partook in several security missions. Most prominent logistic activities: On Wednesday March 24th, 2004, at night an Israeli group which consists of two security officers at least entered the Lebanese territories through the sea at Jiyeh shore where it stayed for fifty hours in Mount Liban accompanied with the above mentioned collaborator. On December 12th, 2004 he partook in assassinating martyr Ghaleb Awali through transporting the executive group to the location of the operation then evacuating them from there after the event. The file of the above mentioned collaborator was submitted to the security bodies in 2006 but he fled before being arrested in 2009. His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah: This is as far as this collaborator is concerned. We also have our own evidences. If one day there was formed a serious investigation committee which is not accused or politicized, this will be a part of what we might cooperate together on to reach the truth. This is the group of indications I have. I do not claim I am presenting decisive evidences so that no one argues with me over that later on. We are presenting indications and signs and asking questions which will open new horizons for the investigation. If there is a truth and someone who wants to reach the truth, he must work on this given and for the first time open the door of investigation on the Israeli assumption after more than five years have passed on the assassination attempt. We keep the rest to another time because we are living in a treacherous deceptive time. Indeed as I have promised I will not tackle the International Investigation Committee or the STL. I am committed to the appeasement. We might have breached this commitment a little when making some interpretations. Well this is the given we have and which have been available after the arrest of the collaborators in 2009-2010. This has helped us to move in this direction. Thus we presented this given now. Were we not obliged to present them now we would have taken some more time to reach a better and stronger given. This is some of what I wanted to present to you tonight. I apologize for the long time I took, but that was indispensable. We tried to concise the material as much as possible to present it tonight. Questions and answers: Q: We thank you for the data you provided the Lebanese people, the Arabs in general and the world with. I absolutely evaluate that you limited your speech on the data that has to do with the Israeli enemy and the possibility of Israel having a role in the assassination of PM Martyr Rafiq Hariri. However, there is always a political logic which sees this assassination operation as part of a continuous political sequence that might have started with Resolution 1559 and carries on with various political stations before reaching the assassination and then what followed it: the political investment of the assassination and all the repercussions that were issued from that appalling crime. Consequently it is difficult to separate between the political repercussions, the sequence of these repercussions and the results we reached, then switching the accused sides pursuant to the requirements of that political movement: first Syria and labeling innocent all other sides approximately, then setting Syria innocent and accusing – even if with clamor – Hezbollah. Does this political review which is being concluded meet with the course you have presented? A: The logical objective rational political review which you have presented and what is being evoked reach the very outcome. I totally agree with what you said, but I wished to stay as far as possible from political reviews and political analyses so that it won't be said that I am drawing conclusions based on analyses. I wished to go more towards what is related to indications, given and data which might be set as the basis that opens new horizons in the investigation, or else we totally back the political given and the political review which you have presented. Q: As you have said these signs and indications do not form decisive evidence but are enough to make us move towards investigating with the Israeli enemy. What will be the position of the Resistance and Hezbollah if the international Investigation Committee or the STL ignored this given, and Lebanese sides whether the Opposition, the Loyalists, March 8 or March 14 blocs did not respond to this effect? That's because really we were surprised with very important given which makes no investigator able to neglect investigating with Israel? A: Such negligence will assert our logic, convictions and accusation of the International Investigation Committee that it is politicized, and this is enough for us. Q: You have presented events which you called indications that finger point at Israel that it might have perpetrated this crime. Don't this given and indications deserve from Your Eminence presenting them to the STL that was established to this effect perhaps it causes a great turnabout in the course of the investigation. Will you present this given to the STL? A: You indeed mean the International Investigation Committee and the General Prosecutor Bellemar. Unfortunately, we do not trust the investigation and that side. But I have said and here I will say again that if the Lebanese government – and it is concerned in that – decides to charge a trusted Lebanese side, we will cooperate with it. We are ready to submit this given to the Lebanese government and the side which it commissions. Thereof, whether the Lebanese government presents this given to the International Investigation Committee or not will be its concern. I do not believe that the Investigation Committee – and because of its previous and current performance – is really a committee to be entrusted with the truth, and I have my evidence on that. However I will pull off my evidence for a later time. Q: Is it true that you provided PM Saad Hariri by the end of 2005 and early 2006 with some data that indicates that there is a team belonging to the Resistance Security body which is monitoring an Israeli collaborator in Beirut and Kisirwan who used to travel along the roads which PM Rafiq Hariri used to pass through in the last months before his assassination? Is it true that you presented this data to PM Hariri through Colonel Wissam Al Hassan in response to the given or conclusions available to the Information Branch which says that there is a team from the Resistance Security linked to the group which used to monitor PM Hariri before his assassination? Which security body did you provide information about Ghassan Al Jid with in 2006? A: I will answer later the last question when I will talk about the collaborators and the spying network and the general performance in the country. As for the first question, that is true. We were tracking an Israeli agent and we offered information about our tracking of this collaborator. However we did not have any information then that the collaborator has to do with the assassination of Premier Rafiq Hariri. Had we have any data we would have submitted it then and presented now. Q: Why did Hezbollah remain silent over such criminal evidences all through these years while seeing the country on the verge of assassination? If the issue of spying plane monitoring which we saw is something new and you recently concluded that you possess it, what about the collaborator whose pictures you presented. This has been available since 1996. Why have you remained silent all through this period of time over such criminal evidences? Why did not Hezbollah speak out until the sword reached its neck and when it became in danger? Is this fear alone what moved you to present the indications? Finally and to be somehow skeptical, Israel scans all of Lebanon and every corner in Lebanon. So you might have taken these footages from a long Israeli film. This press conference might lead you to the international tribunal. What do you say? A: First, the case of Ahmad does not form criminal evidence. That's why I did not mention him with the evidences but rather put under an independent title. I cited him as a witness to say that the Israelis have implanted in the mind of PM Hariri something of this sort. However I did not consider that what Ahmad Nasrallah performed is a proof besides being criminal evidence. If I were a judge I would not have considered it criminal evidence. I cited him under the title of Israel's accusation of Hezbollah and not in the course of our accusation of Israel. Evoking such issue in the media wouldn't have had any significance in the previous stages. But yes, in this integrated presentation it might be a helping element which supports and further clarifies things while making more indications. But if I presented it all alone in 2005 or 2006 or 2007 saying this is what Ahmad Nasrallah did, it will be said but who is accusing you. No one did accuse you. Why did we talk about Ahmad Nasrallah? Still you have heard many frequently talking in the country following my speech weeks ago. My tackling of the indictment and my defense have become evidence for my conviction. What if I evoked the issue of Ahmad Nasrallah previously and that is not criminal evidence. They will say what is your story? You are not accused. No, that does not form criminal evidence. As for the clips and aerial surveillance footage, the enemy may carry general filming. But filming different definite places from definite and different perspectives at different and various times is an indication of a surveillance that precedes operations and not aerial tourism. Thus experts may discuss that and rely on it. Q: You said that Ahmad Nasrallah could control the path of PM Hariri's motorcade in 1996. So why did not Israel assassinate him in 1996? Did you inform PM Hariri of that back in 1996 until February 14th, 2005? The second question: As for the filming, surely the clips we saw are but excerpts. For example the coastal road which you said they filmed but has no headquarters for Hezbollah, then had headquarters for the Syrian forces near the Sportive Field in Jal Al Bahr. Even the KFC checkpoint was there. Even more we did not see footages of Kraitim Castle or Fakra Castle? When the Israelis want to execute an assassination operation, they will monitor all the entrances and exits to those regions. A: As for the first question, back in 1996 there was not a great political scheme on the level of Lebanon and on the regional level which necessitates an assassination operation of the level of the assassination of PM Rafiq Hariri. Had Israel in 1996 assassinated PM Rafiq Hariri, all the local, regional and international repercussions that took place following 2005 would not have taken place. There wasn't any George Bush. I do not know how mature the French stance was then. The presence, influence and popularity of PM Hariri on the Lebanese level were only in their beginning. That's besides the internal statue quo and the regional situation. Then the assassination operation would not have achieved the great political project Mr. Talal talked about at the beginning. The assassination operation came in the framework of a political scheme which started in 2000 and which is related to the whole region: Lebanon, Syria and Palestine were but chains in this great political scheme which led to the invasion of countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) and led to wars and also led to assassination operation as important as the assassination of PM Hariri. As for the filming, the clips we presented are footages of turns where there are no Syrian checkpoints or Hezbollah headquarters. This is first. Second, there are footages which we did not present. That does not mean that the Israelis did not film them. I said a while ago that the MK drone was over the car of martyr Abu Hassan Salameh when the assassination operation was executed, but we have no footage for that. It was above the house of Al Majzoub when the assassination was executed but we have no footage. At times it was over the houses of leaderships. I was a Secretary General before the war but I do not have a footage taken by the Israeli reconnaissance plane which used to film our house in Haret Hreik and the headquarter of the secretariat in Haret Hreik. Are we to say that it did not film them? How did it bombard them during the war then? However I do not claim – and this is what I said at the very beginning – that we intercept all the footages. If we do not have footages that does not mean they did not film. That is one. Second, they might have filmed them but we could not have intercepted them due to the codification. What you said to the effect of not having footages for some places is not a proof that there isn't any filming. I am saying that I possess these clips. It's supposed that the Israelis have an answer for that before the international investigation committee: Why were they filming these places and focusing on them at different times and from different perspectives? Q: Whom do you want to convince today? Hezbollah masses are with Hezbollah and perhaps today they are more with Hezbollah to the effect of this conviction. The other masses and due to political aligning in Lebanon will not be convinced by all what you have presented today. This was made clear in political statements which were made prior to the press conference. Does it soothe you that an indictment be issued without internal political coverage? Is this what you are seeking? Moving to another topic, is it true that you told the Army Commander when he visited you lately that you are ready to hand the members accused in the indictment but whoever wants to arrest them is to assume the responsibility, and that he told you – and the political leadership in Lebanon also – that the army won't be a dagger in the back of the Resistance. Consequently you protected yourself as far as the Lebanese Army is concerned in case the indictment was issued and started with the post indictment issuance era. A: What you said did not take place between me and the Army Commander. What has to do with the indictment and the way of dealing with it when it is issued come in time. As for the first question, we do not want to issue an indictment. We do not want to increase the conviction of the convinced or convince those who do not want to be convinced. All through the previous week until today I have been reading for one of the politicians – So it is not one statement. He made four or five statements since my last speech until today - saying that the evidences provided by Nasrallah are invalid. Before even knowing the evidences and what I might talk about he considered everything invalid. I do not argue with such people. All what I am saying is that we want the truth really, and we want to help in achieving the truth, but we are very much interested in making the Lebanese, Arab, Islamic and international public opinion acquainted with what we have. That's because the central target of the indictment which is said to be issued is above all distorting the image of Hezbollah and labeling Israel innocent. So part of the existing battle is a public opinion battle. Some have spent $500 million in Lebanon only – They did not say how much they spent in other countries, other Arab satellites and other newspapers. They are talking about Lebanon - to distort the image of Hezbollah. So there is the battle of the image and the public opinion. In as much as we are concerned and interested in helping in the investigation to reach the truth, we are concerned in getting truthfully engaged – others might not talk with such frankness - in the public opinion battle and say that the Resistance is oppressed, falsely accused and aggressed against. This is what I started with on the very first day, especially that some are working night and day to label Israel innocent. Whoever wants to be convinced, it's up to him. I do not want to force anyone to accept or not to accept. Even I was realistic in what I presented. I said they are indications and not decisive evidences. However the gate before this supposition must be opened because for five years neither the STL nor the International Investigation Committee nor anyone in Lebanon took one step and went towards the Israeli supposition. Even in Lebanon no one worked on that. What I did is that this supposition has indications which I want the people to know and get acquainted with. Q: What would be the reaction of Hezbollah in particular if Hezbollah members were accused of assassinating PM Hariri? Would Hezbollah withdraw from the government? Would another May 7th take place? The other question is a demand which I hope you will accept: Would you accept to give AFP a special interview? A: I can't promise anyone because if I promised you I will be obliged to fulfill my promise and my circumstances might not help. So I apologize for not promising you. Maybe one day that might take place, for everything might take place. As for the first question, the press conference is dedicated for what I talked about. I will tackle everything that has to do with the indictment, the future and the repercussions in due time, Inshallah. Q: As for the aerial footages, have you intercepted footages that have to do with monitoring other figures who were assassinated at the same era as PM Rafiq Hariri. Second, with what means it was evident that Ghassan Al Jid was present in St George area? Does it have technical or informative evidence? A: We have focused in the past few months in reviewing the films and the documents that have to do with the movement of the motorcade of PM Hariri. We did not have enough time to review footages for other personalities. We might carry on with that later. If we reached anything we might announce it or give it to the concerned Lebanese authorities. As for Ghassan Al Jid, I mentioned that if a serious investigation committee was formed, we are ready to present the evidence on his presence there on February 13th, 2005, but we are not to say everything in the media today. Q: We have noticed that you did not stress on the telecommunication file especially that it seems that the STL will rely on this file primarily through monitoring specific calls. What do you have to say to this effect? A: I did not focus on the telecommunication file because that will lead us to talk about a file we want to push with it what is prepared for us in the indictment. This will be tackled later. I have limited my word regarding the telecoms in as much as saying that it helps the Israelis in having a technical control for executing an assassination operation. But in fact I also have things to say on the telecoms issue and I have documented data also. However everything related to the telecoms topic is intentionally pulled off to the day on which I will handle the indictment and what the indictment is said to be based on. Then we will talk about that. Q: You have talked about a calming attempt which was brought about by the tripartite summit which took place in Beirut. Is it possible that we know what this summit had told you? Is it true that the Saudi King talked in the Lebanese way and said that "he will take this issue to his hert" and told you one way or another that he guarantees that no indictment will be issued against you? I have another question. You talked about a follow up committee between you and the family of PM Hariri which was represented in the committee by Wissam Al Hassan. Is it possible that we know when did this relation deteriorate and mutual mistrust overwhelmed instead? A: Starting with July War. On the light of July War and what took place in July War the relation deteriorated. Until before July War we were in contact always. There were frequent meetings. Even a short time before the war on the National Dialogue Table MP Saad Hariri invited me to Kraitim and I went there and we had dinner. There were many friends and part of the meeting had to do with the investigation, the truth and the data we had then. But what took place in July War in fact led to the deterioration of this relation. Anyway, it's not time to talk about that now. As for the first question, I do not have anything to say more than what I said in my speech a week ago. I said that we understood from the tripartite Arab summit that there is a serious Arab attempt to block the way before the Israeli dreams. Q: In your viewpoint do you believe the court which you describe as Israeli and which the counselor of Sayyed Ali Khamenai referred to as Israeli-American deserves disclosing one of the secrets of the resistance via analyzing the footages taken by the MK drone as if it is a defense strategy and the secret now is revealed to the Israelis. Does that deserve revealing a secret? The second question is that PM Saad Hariri's counselor Mohammad Shatah said that PM Saad Hariri is ready to meet you. Are you ready for this meeting? Will you call on him frankly to quit the STL? A: As for revealing the secret, well protecting Lebanon and the Resistance before what is threatening it through the performance of the international investigation and the STL deserves sacrificing our blood and not only revealing secrets. Consequently there is no problem. Second, it is true I am revealing a secret to the public opinion, but as for the Israelis one way or another after Ansariyeh Operation, they took this supposition into consideration and resorted to encoding the footages. Consequently, revealing the secret will not make us lose much from what we hope to preserve or keep to ourselves. Second, in fact, there is no severance of relations between PM Saad Hariri and me. There is contact. Even while I am delivering my speeches during the past weeks, there was a meeting between the political assistant brethren Hajj Hussein Khalil and PM Saad Hariri in his house. On the day of Adeisseh incident and since I did not use the phone, I asked brethren Hajj Hussein Khalil to call PM Saad Hariri in Sardinia. So we were in contact and tackled the developments in the South. In fact there is no break off. May a meeting take place? A meeting may take place at anytime. Will I ask him to give up the STL? I will not ask anything from him whether to give up the STL or annul the indictment or give up Bellemar. Indeed in many of my speeches, I said that the issue of the assassination of PM Hariri is not anymore a familial right. From the legitimate perspective they are entrusted of his blood. But he has become also a national responsibility. Lebanon as a whole, along with Syria and the Palestinian cause to some extent have been influenced by the event. In case I met with Sheikh Saad as we used to meet previously and discussed this issue more than once, we will say we want the truth and justice. For five years the truth was lost behind the false witnesses and those who fabricated them. Now we must not allow the Israelis again to cover up the truth, and we are ready for everything that will help in revealing the truth. Q: We had a problem tonight because though you presented such evidences and indications but you still insist on your fixed stance to the effect that the STL is not serious. Did this media appearance today only aimed at turning over the Lebanese and Arab public opinion or they were legal evidences and indications? If they are legal evidences and indications why don't you take them directly to the STL? Worth mentioning that the STL has previously received General Jamil Assayed and listened to his viewpoint in the topic he was demanding. A: It's true it received him and listened to his viewpoint. But what was the result? Tell me what was the outcome? Q: The issue is still a lawsuit, and the debate was public. This is what is important. A: I have answered this question a while ago. I said I will not go to a side which I do not trust. When we some time ago responded to the International Investigation Committee to interrogate with our brethrens as witnesses we accepted to go only to offer help and because we knew that if we did not go to the investigation we will cause an uproar in Lebanon, the region and the world. They will all say was Hezbollah not involved, they would have gone to the interrogation as they were summoned as witnesses. This was why we went to the investigation. I have tackled this issue through the TV and in a very clear way. That's why I do not cooperate with a side which I do not trust. Let there be a side which we trust and we are ready to the maximum cooperation. Q: Following the last two answers you gave, let me benefit from your large-heartedness and say as we look to our lines we find that our majority is from one color. So allow me to pass on the views of the other color. Your Eminence, though you had all of this information, you partook in a national unity government. The 13th Clause in the government's ministerial statement provides for cooperating with the STL. Has the expiry date of that become near? Second, last March 31rst and after the members belonging to Hezbollah were summoned, you pledged to cooperate with the STL. Does today's press conference end the expiry date of that too? A: As for part one of the question, we had a discussion then. Our brethren ministers remember very well. The leadership of Hezbollah had the idea of showing reservation on the STL because that was clear to us. We said that today we will not tackle the STL. There will come a day when everything will be revealed and we will talk about everything with documentation. Several brethrens suggested that we show reservation. Others had other view saying that will make a problem and cause an unnecessary argument in the country as everyone knows our position from the STL. It was as if we wanted to show reservation on the STL in as much as some parties want to show reservation on the equation of the Army, the people and the Resistance. Thus we discarded with that idea. However our stance from the STL is known and old. As for whether we cooperate or not, that will be clear in the next date with the International Investigation Committee. See how much in a hurry they are. They had their summer vacation. We were moving with the investigation but they informed us that they will take their summer vacation before the uproar would take place. The vacation extends until after Al Fitr Eid. So let's fast and enjoy Al Fitr Eid. After the holiday the date will be due and we will announce our position. Q: As a sequel to the previous question on sacrificing one of the most important secrets of the Resistance security operation, perhaps the masses of the Resistance are thinking to what extent revealing this secret will influence the Resistance surveillance and intelligence capability in its war with the Israeli enemy. Perhaps some among the Resistance masses are saying this is a great blunt. A while ago you clarified this issue. Part two of the question: You have mentioned in the presentation course that one of the many goals of the STL and the misguidance and the indictment as well as the Israeli sedition is creating a gap between the Sunnites and the Shiites. Today what do you say to our brethren Sunnites in Lebanon and in the Arab world after presenting these indications and data on the involvement of Israel – which must be the common enemy to all Muslims and Christians in Lebanon and perhaps to the whole humanity in the world. A: As for the first question, the Resistance masses and the resistance fighters know that we study our steps very well. Let them be assured as to what we will miss or what we will not miss. They are very much assured. Anyway, we might've talked about one eye but perhaps there are several eyes Inshallah. As our capacities, expertise, capabilities and readiness develop we are able to take risks in any of the various fields which we are engaged in. As for the second point, everyone knows that the main obsession or interest of Hezbollah has become the movement of this Resistance and its absolute commitment to the Lebanese national unity between Muslims and Christians and the other sects and factions. Hezbollah takes pain to preserve the Islamic unity, to avoid internal clashes and struggles and to give priority to the conflict with the Israeli enemy. Hezbollah's historic course is as such. Consequently, Hezbollah will carry on in this track. When I tackle the indictment, the STL or the International Investigation my problem is with Israel and America and with those who manipulate the STL. My problem is not with my Sunnite people in Lebanon or with my Sunnite people in the region so that I would be obliged to address them with a special speech tonight. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.


<