In the previous installments I have discussed the necessity of precise thought and language if we want to talk with each other rather than engaging in self-congratulatory monologues. I have also pointed to my friendship with Professor Petsche and how our correspondence has been mutually fruitful in clarifying our thoughts. To summarize briefly: Human brains are highly individualistic. They are shaped anatomically and functionally by heredity as well as the life experiences of the individual. While it is agreed that the “mind” is influenced by past experiences the fact that this reflects itself in brain structure and function is less commonly admitted to. Yet, since this is the case it provides the reason why some behavior patterns are so difficult to change even if they are harmful to the individual. The other point to emphasize is that we, therefore, should not merely ascribe ill-will to others who do not readily agree with our views because in many instances they simply cannot follow our line of thought by not having undergone our life experiences. This is theoretically obvious but since it calls for tolerance of differences, rather than condemnation, we find ourselves in the political as well as at times in the private sphere of our lives at odds with others, who then receive a variety of undesirable labels which in turn leads to mutual recriminations.

            Since Petsche and I are not only neuroscientists but also have philosophical interests we have been trying to bridge this gap between science and philosophy which bedevils the public at large. Furthermore, as neurologists, we have chosen the study of the brain and its functions as one of our major professional goals, with the other endeavoring to provide the best possible care of our patients. Therefore, it was more or less inevitable that we should drift into the fundamental questions of how human beings think and communicate with each other. In so doing Petsche came up with two terms in the German language which need to be kept apart when we talk about the genesis and use of thought processes. These are Gedankenkunde and Gedankenkunst. Gedankenkunde denotes the scientific investigation of the physical concomitants of thinking with EEG/MEG, fMRI and other imaging methods, as has been discussed in last month’s installment. This will lead to a body of information which already has practical value. Examples have been shown in a recent “60 Minutes” segment where patients, who had lost the functions of their limbs as well as speech, communicated their thoughts via EEG signals, which were deciphered by a computer program and displayed on a video-monitor.

            Gedankenkunst on the other hand is more difficult to define in the English language because the word Kunst – Art has been degraded to a considerable extent in our culture. A fair number of our celebrated “artists,” regardless of the field they labor in: music, the theater or the visual arts, would hardly have qualified for that title in previous decades. The Gedankenkunst Petsche is talking about, is the ability to express one’s thoughts not only in a beautiful poetic way but also in a coherent system of thought which can stand as a monument to its creator. Petsche, who has read infinitely more philosophy than I have, had to conclude that most of our well known philosophers have really not created a cohesive system that can be regarded as valid across different cultures but have produced philosophems.

            Let me explain the various terms. A philosopher, strictly speaking, is merely a “friend of wisdom” and this does not require even a college degree. Since a number of professional teachers of philosophy were actually not “friends of wisdom,” but merely spouted theories invented by others, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche excoriated them. A philosophical system could be compared to a mental home, in an attractive neighborhood, which is well founded and furnished, where the person is content to live. Looking at the various existing philosophies this goal is hardly ever met. Our philosophers have instead provided us with the mentioned philosophems which are defined as: a philosophical proposition, doctrine, axiom, theorem or principle of reasoning. With other words our well known philosophers have provided us with some bits and pieces of advice, which may or may not be well founded, but for the most part they have not been able to provide us with a mental home of the type described above. This would have required a true architect of the mind who is not just an architect but a Michelangelo who can see a Pietà in a block of marble. This is the Gedankenkunst Petsche was talking about.

            True artists as incorporated in Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rubens and others in the visual arts; Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven in music; Shakespeare and Goethe in poetry and language, are nowhere to be seen among today’s celebrities. Instead we have what is called in German Kuenstlerei that is: pretension to artistry. The word “artifice” came to mind but its definition of, “crafty but underhanded deception; a trick played out as an ingenious, but artful, ruse; a strategic maneuver that uses some clever means to ...,”  has a negative connotation which I do not want to imply. What some of our contemporary “artists” are doing is merely to conform, frequently with meager talents, to the Zeitgeist in order to achieve fame and fortune. Since we live in the “modern deconstruction” era any artistic result which expresses universal beauty and harmony can hardly be expected.

            All of this may sound highly theoretical but it is not. The mental world we live in expresses itself in conduct which affects others, and for those in power the world at large. Especially for people in leadership positions the inner and outer world becomes one and since thought precedes action it is imperative that we acquaint ourselves with the mental homes our leadership lives in. This can only be done by inference, of course, but we do have their spoken and written words as well as actual conduct on which to base a reasonable estimate. Furthermore, as mentioned in last month’s installment, there exists an unconscious attitude which precedes conscious thought. It flavors the thought and thereby all subsequent actions. As a result thoughts, reasoning and philosophy are frequently used to justify the unconscious wish and “rationalizations” are invented. This is precisely the reason why the Buddha, Siddartha Gautama, placed “Right View” on top of his eight fold Noble Path and why it needs extensive discussion.  

            In the March installment I have also mentioned that I did not know the original Sanskrit terms for the various aspects of the Noble Path but our daughter came to the rescue. The term dŗst for view is derived from to see and therefore does reflect inner view or insight. Right stands for correct and as everything else in Buddhism, does not reflect a moral judgment in the sense of right and wrong. It merely denotes that there are two ways of doing something: a right way which leads to the desired result come hell or high water and a wrong way which will not withstand adversity. Any sailor knows that there is only one right way to make a given knot and a hundred different wrong ones, which led to the adage that, “He who doesn’t know how to tie a knot, ties a lot. This brings us to some examples from the past month which illustrate concretely what has been so far discussed only in the abstract.

            The on-line bookstore Daedalus had sent me one of their periodic catalogues and in it I found the title: “Jesus and Yahweh” by Harold Bloom with the subtitle, “The Names Divine.” I had not been familiar with Bloom’s writings but in view of just having published the Jesus book I thought it might be useful to read his views on the topic. The subtitle should have given me pause because it is, of course, unusual in the English language to put the adjective after the noun, but the meaning eluded me at the time. Mere curiosity prevailed, I bought the book, read it and was puzzled as well as to some extent annoyed. Mind you, I knew absolutely nothing about the author and merely judged this particular product. But since he wrote, “This book culminates for me what began half my lifetime ago, on my thirty-seventh birthday, when I woke up from a nightmare to begin writing an essay called ‘The Covering Cherub or Poetic Influence.’ This was published six years later, much revised, as the opening chapter of a short book called The Anxiety of Influence (1973);’” I also had to obtain that one from the Marriott Library of our university. This was necessary because I had never felt any “anxiety of influence” in my life and didn’t know what he was talking about.

            For now, let me stay with Jesus and Yahweh, because one can summarize the essence of the 238 pages in one paragraph. The first part of the book deals with Jesus and the second with Yahweh. He agrees with others that the quest for the historical Jesus, or Yeshua how prefers to call him since Jesus was a Jew, is futile. The gospel biographies are unreliable. From extra-biblical sources about Jesus, Bloom mentioned only the brief quote by Josephus, whom he calls “a superb liar,” as confirmation that Jesus had ever lived. The Christian Church has misread the Hebrew Bible for its own purposes, the “Father” of Jesus bears hardly any relationship to the Yahweh of the Hebrew documents and the idea of a Judeo-Christian heritage is untenable because there is an “Irreconcilability of Christianity and Judaism.”  

            I am glad that I had not read Bloom’s book prior to writing my own on Jesus because I have come independently to the same conclusions. We differ, however, not only in the style of writing but also on the basic premise in regard to the Deity. Let me discuss style first. It abounds in apodictic, at times sarcastic and at other times seemingly meaningless statements which are designed to impress the reader with erudition. As such the book is an example for what I have referred to above as Kuenstlerei or pretensions to art. The German language has another word which is applicable: Effekthascherei, namely trying to impress the reader regardless of truth or the harm that may be done by polemical statements.

            Here are some examples: “All Western irony is a repetition of Jesus’ enigmas/riddles, in amalgam with the ironies of Socrates [p.10].”  He regarded Yahweh, “by definition the most formidable of all ironists [p.12].” “Paul and the other three Gospel authors (or traditions) have and partly deserve their literary admirers, yet Mark stands by itself as the enigma-of enigmas, endlessly resistant to analysis [p.31].” On the other hand Bloom had stated earlier that “The Marcan Jesus may be as close to ‘he real Jesus’ as we can come [p. 11].” Other stylistic examples are “…the Trinity, Christendom’s extraordinary exploit in somehow asserting its innocence as to the exiling of Yahweh [p.98].” “Christology is a weird science from the perspective either of Judaism or of Islam. Immersing myself in its study has been an educational experience for me, not at all akin to my bafflement when I try to absorb Buddhism or Hinduism, both of which evade me [p.154].” While all of the above can be explained as the harmless musings of an author who seeks to justify his ideas, the statement, “If Yahweh is a man of war, Allah is a suicide bomber [p237]” is clearly inflammatory and occurs in the final chapter headlined “Conclusion: Reality –Testing.”

            The statement that, “Only Mark’s Jesus goes through an all-night agony because his death is near [p.8],” is factually incorrect. The night at Gethsemane is reported in all three synoptic gospels. Furthermore, “Mark’s persuasive misreading changes ‘one like a human being’ into the apocalyptic term ‘Son of Man’ [p.64].This leaves the impression that Mark engaged in a deliberate distortion of an Aramaic document and ignores that Mark had, in all probability, used the Greek Septuagint for Daniel’s vision where the term is indeed nion anthropon which translates into son of man.

            The main point of the book seems to be a demonstration that the “Anxiety of Influence” was at work in the preparation of the New Testament, which he prefers to call the Belated Testament. Here is Bloom’s explanation of what he means,

“I have learned that my idea, the anxiety of influence is very easily misunderstood, which is natural, since I base the notion on the process of ‘misreading,’ by which I do not intend dyslexia. Later works misread earlier ones; when the misreading is strong enough to be eloquent, coherent, and persuasive to many, then it will endure, and sometimes prevail. The New Testament frequently is a strong misreading of the Hebrew Bible, and certainly it has persuaded multitudes [p.46].” . . .

Influence is a kind of influenza, a contamination once thought to pour in upon us from the stars. Mark’s influenza was caught by him from the J writer, or Yahwist; Paul’s and John’s cases stem from the Law and the Prophets alike. The great critic Northrop Frye (who had contaminated me) remarked to me that whether a later reader experienced such an effect was entirely a matter of temperament and circumstances. With amiable disloyalty I answered that influence anxiety was not primarily an effect in an individual, but rather the relation of one work of literature to another. Therefore the anxiety of influence is the result, and not the cause, of a strong misreading. With that we parted (intellectually) forever, though in old age I appreciate the irony that my criticism is to his as the New Testament is to the Tanakh, which is spiritually the paradoxical reverse of our spiritual preferences [p.47].”

The last sentence of this excerpt will be discussed later but while I can understand that later writers are inevitably influenced by what others have previously written and may either modify, or plagiarize the contents, I could not see why this should be regarded as one being “contaminated” by it and wondered where the “anxiety” fit into all of this. This is the reason why I had to consult the 1973 work which was the seminal one and established Bloom as one of the foremost literary critics of this country. It earned him tenure as Professor of Humanities at Yale and numerous prizes. What struck me most in that book was its Humpty Dumpty quality in the idiosyncratic way he uses language.            

The subtitle of the book is: A Theory of Poetry. Although he does talk about poets he also lists as examples Freud and it becomes apparent that he really means anyone who tries to bring a new aspect to literature. The main point is that “the poet” strives for originality but has to “wrestle” with his precursors lest he becomes overwhelmed by their “influence.” “… Self-appropriation involves the immense anxieties of indebtedness, for what strong maker desires the realization that he has failed to create himself? [p5].” Later on we read, “The anxiety of influence is so terrible because it is both a kind of separation anxiety and the beginning of a compulsion neurosis, or fear of a death that is a personified superego [p.58].” I could go on with numerous other examples of this type which filled 157 pages but the Freudian influence is obvious and I believe that the reader will already have the flavor of Professor Bloom’s type of thinking and style of writing.

Let us, therefore, return to the last sentence of the excerpt from page 47. Herman Northrop Frye (1912-1999) was a Canadian author who can be regarded as having established “literary criticism” as an academic scientific discipline with his essay on: Anatomy of Criticism, which was published in 1957. He had studied theology and became an ordained minister of the United Church of Canada. Bloom on the other hand is conflicted about his religion.

“Yahweh, whom I have evaded throughout my three-quarters of a century, has an awesome capacity not to go away, though he deserves to be convicted for desertion, in regard not just to the Jews but to all suffering humankind. In this book [Jesus and Yahweh] the interpreter is a Jew whose spirituality responds most fervently to the ancient tendency we term ‘Gnosticism,’ which may or may not be a religion in the sense that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam remain the primary Western traditions. I very much want to dismiss Yahweh as the ancient Gnostics did, finding in him a mere demiurge who had botched the Creation so that it was simultaneously a Fall. But I wake these days, sometime between midnight and two A.M., because of nightmares in which Yahweh sardonically appears as various beings, ranging from a Havana-smoking Edwardian attired Dr. Sigmund Freud to the Book of Daniel’s silently reproachful Ancient of Days. I trudge downstairs gloomily and silently, lest I wake my wife, and breakfast on tea and dark bread while rereading yet once more in the Tanakh, wide swatches of Mishnah and Talmud, and those disquieting texts the New Testament and Augustine’s City of God [p.236].”

            When one reads these lines it is obvious from where this anxiety of influence originated and, in spite of protestations to the contrary by Bloom, Frye was correct when he diagnosed the “anxiety” as an effect of the literature on Bloom rather than the other way round. Bloom prefers the term Tanakh (acronym for Torah, Prophets and Writings) over Old Testament, which is understandable, but he does not seem to realize, that the Tanakh is only a partial version of the first complete Jewish Bible – the Septuagint. He stated that the “New Testament accomplishes its appropriation by means of its drastic reordering of the Tanakh,” and then proceeded to list the books of the Bible in the order in which they appear in the Christian Bible and contrasts it with that of the Tanakh. When one peruses this table one finds that the Tanakh does not contain different books from the OT but merely omits some which are present in the Christian version. Furthermore, these books are contained in the Septuagint, and their sequence is identical to the Christian OT. Bloom apparently felt that the Church Fathers had willfully changed the sequence so that the books end with Malachi instead of with II Kings, as in the Tanakh, to provide a different emphasis. But I believe that he was mistaken. Since Greek was the lingua franca in the first century A.D. the Septuagint was, in all probability, the original scripture from which the gospel writers took their information rather than a Hebrew or Aramaic text.

            It is, of course, true that the gospel writers did adapt the prophecies contained in the Septuagint to allow for an identification of Jesus with the expected Messiah. This was not some inadvertent misreading but purposeful, as has been pointed out in my book on Jesus. Since these points deal with a fundamental aspect of Christian religion they will be discussed further in appropriate detail at another time. The important aspect for now is the relationship of Bloom to Yahweh. It is not idiosyncratic but pervasive in a considerable “secular” segment of the Jewish population and a source of inner conflict. This is then projected onto the outer world. Bloom defined the differences between the three “Abrahamic” religions as,

“A Christian believes that Jesus was the Christ, anointed before the creation in order to atone for the sins of the world. Muslim’s submit to Allah’s will, shatteringly set forth in the Qur’an. My own mother trusted in the Covenant, despite Yahweh’s blatant violation of its terms.”

            Thus, for Bloom and like-minded others the role of the Deity is to serve the needs of individual humans or the nation, apparently regardless of their conduct. As I have pointed out in The Moses Legacy the Covenant at Sinai, which is the hallmark of the Jewish religion, is simply a business contract on the model of Egypt. Here is the relevant quote,

“Erman in his Life in ancient Egypt gives the following example: ‘Contract concluded between A and B, that B should give x to A, whilst A should give y to B, Behold B was therewith content.’ The contract between Yahweh and the Israelites at Sinai stated that: ‘if you will hearken to my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples… and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation [Ex 19:5, 6].’ ‘And all the people answered together, and said: ‘all that the Lord hath spoken we will do’ [Ex. 19:8].’ We therefore might say: ‘Behold the people were therewith content [p.72].’”

            When one subsequently reads about the actual conduct of the people, and their offspring as depicted by the prophets, it should come as no surprise that Yahweh was not pleased; he chastised them, and eventually may have given up on this ungrateful lot. These are, of course, assumptions, because there is no evidence, except from the biblical assertion, that such a Covenant has ever existed. Nevertheless, the idea that Yahweh owes the Jews something because of his promises has apparently penetrated some Jewish brains to the extent that even persons, such as Bloom, who no longer believe in or trusts Yahweh, still harbor this notion. In case one were to think that I am exaggerating, here are the last two sentences of the book, “Yahweh present and [italics in the original] absent has more to do with the end of trust than with the end of faith. Will he yet make a covenant with us that he [italics added] both can and will keep?”

            In the book on Jesus I raised the question, if “living without the help of an unseen benevolent power, which we like to call God, is possible?” The answer was yes, but “living in mental harmony throughout all of life’s vicissitudes is not likely.” I believe that this comment applies also to Professor Bloom and his persistent nightmares which prevent restful sleep.

While I was in the process of reading Bloom’s book our daughter came for a few days of skiing and she presented me with the counterpoint in form of: The Good Heart. A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It is a partial transcript of the John Main Seminar held in London, England, in 1994, in addition to an explanation of key aspects of Buddhism and Christianity, as well as short biographies of the main participants. The annual Seminar is sponsored by “The World Community for Christian Meditation” and this particular one was devoted to the Dalai Lama’s interpretations of selected New Testament portions. He was given eight passages, two from each of the four evangelists, for comments on his understanding of the scripture.

            When I read this book, immediately after having finished the mentioned two by Bloom, I was vastly impressed by the different spirit which was expressed in its pages. The main point was the deep respect both sides had for the viewpoint of the other. They had not come together to preach or to convert each other but merely to learn and understand the different viewpoints. The hallmark was that differences need not divide but can be used for the growth of understanding our world. The Dalai Lama pointed out that even Buddhism is not monolithic, different sects interpret the Buddha’s teaching in different ways, but this does not make one superior to the other. The common ground can be found in the teaching of the Reality of Suffering and how to overcome it. This requires respect and tolerance for the views of others because any other course would lead to an increase of suffering rather than its diminution.

            The passages the Dalai Lama was given to discuss dealt with: Love your enemy (Mt. 38-48); the Beatitudes (Mt. 5:1-10); Equanimity (Mk. 3:31-35); the Kingdom of God (Mk. 4:26-34); the Transfiguration (Lk. 9:38-36); the Mission (Lk. 9 1-6); Faith (Jn. 12:44-50) and the Resurrection (Jn. 20:10-18). In all instances he expressed himself clearly and succinctly and I was pleasantly surprised about the extent his opinions coincided with the ones I had expressed in my book on Jesus. The notion expressed there that a “Jesus Conundrum” exists only in the secular West and that Buddhists would welcome him as a Bodhisattva was correct because this is how the Dalai Lama had referred to him during the Seminar. The Good Heart is a highly recommendable introduction to Buddhist thought and some of its differences with Christianity; a topic which will be discussed further on another occasion.

            At this time it is appropriate to focus on the problem of suffering, which is the First Noble Truth, its meaning, and how to deal with it. The Dalai Lama offers us an excellent example. Tenzin Gyatso was born in 1935 of poor peasant stock in northeastern Tibet and was recognized at age 2 as the re-incarnation of the previous Dalai Lama who had died in 1933. He was moved to Lhasa where he received intensive religious and spiritual training. In 1940 he was officially enthroned as the 14^th Dalai Lama and after his final examination in 1959 he was awarded the equivalent of a PhD with summa cum laude in Buddhist philosophy. The Chinese army had already invaded Tibet in 1950 and in 1954 the Dalai Lama went to Beijing to meet with Mao Tse Tung to arrange for some peaceful co-existence between the two countries. The talks failed; the Chinese occupation and repression of the local customs became increasingly harsh, which led to a rebellion. With his life in danger the Dalai Lama had to flee to India where asylum was granted in Dharamsala. These aspects are important. Not only had he experienced suffering first hand but its meaning was revealed through his life. Hardly anybody knows anything about the 13^th Dalai Lama but the 14^th is known the world over and has received the Nobel Peace Prize. Had the Chinese not invaded his country and eventually forced him into exile he would never have gained the stature he has today. He deeply thought about the meaning of suffering, internalized the teaching and now stands as a symbol for how to conduct oneself in adversity.

            This is the precise opposite of current Western society’s ideation, as also expressed in Bloom’s book, that whenever something untoward happens, someone else is to blame and if no one can readily be blamed, it’s Yahweh’s fault. Clearly this cannot be Right View and unless our society changes its mental outlook from always assigning blame to others, while we bathe in the innocence of righteousness, this century is likely to become even bloodier than the disastrous previous one. This is the lesson which ought to be taken to heart.

Although Buddhists do not believe in a Creator God they do believe in the power of prayer, not for themselves as individuals, but mainly for others. The Dalai Lama closed his Nobel Prize acceptance speech with, “I pray for all of us, oppressor and friend, that together we succeed in building a better world through human understanding and love, and that in doing so we may reduce the pain and suffering of all sentient beings.” Let us join him in this work.