re: #10 Sergey Romanov

No problem. The method of religious investigation itself should be deeply personal. There is a history, in Western culture of using external proof to convince you to adopt something that must be firmly grasped by the heart.

So, there were (and still are) logical proofs for the existence of Gd, on the one hand, and scientific proofs getting into the same area, either theistic or atheistic. Even when I was in Israel there was a strong reliance on archaeological evidence in the makeup of many folks’ spirituality. This certainly would be the case with Tefillin. First, the Tefillin have to survive for thousands of years, which is unlikely because they are organic. Second, it’s very difficult to have the tools to make the fine sets we have today. But the real proof regarding Tefillin, is wearing them, putting them on about a thousand times until you understand it—or begin to understand it.

It’s not something I can communicate or prove to another person. Nor would I try—because the act of discovery is absolutely essential for correct practice. At least, that’s how I see it. And that’s also the main issue that I have with Jewish institutions. Modeled after Western schools and institutions, they tend to shut down the intense curiosity, the learning fire that we are all born with. They discourage the art of asking the hard question, the question which will shake the dominant paradigm.

But that is precisely what one should learn from the Talmud, asking the hard questions, shaking the dominant paradigm. Doesn’t happen nearly enough.