A provocative post by Mis-nagid (hat tip to my True Ann-Sister) -- a secretly atheist frum Jew -- has me thinking: what exactly is Orthodoxy, anyway? Not just in Judaism, but in all religions, and in life?
According to MerriamWebster's online dictionary, the word basically means an opinion that seems good:
Etymology: Medieval Latin doxologia, from Late Greek, from Greek doxa opinion, glory (from dokein to seem, seem good).
So then, everyone has their little orthodoxies that they carry around with them. Zen seems to suggest you must constantly poke, prod, examine, and gently dismiss any belief or view to which you're attached. Is Orthodoxy the antithesis of this view, or another systematic way of deepening knowledge so that you are able to blow away faulty perception?
My co-author on Letters to a Buddhist Jew, Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz, sees such deep and prismatic meaning in the Torah: could he possibly have arrived at this level of awareness (if awareness it is) without embracing Orthodoxy?
Sometimes I'm in total agreement with this post from Annie: the whole thing makes me tired. To be constantly open -- except when self-defense is required -- seems, at those times, to be the highest human condition.
Or is that just my orthodoxy?
--T.A.
"My co-author on Letters to a Buddhist Jew, Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz"
Holy cr*p, that's you? I just saw that in a Judaica store, and skimmed it.
Posted by: Mis-nagid | February 23, 2005 at 03:12 PM
Yeah... that's me. "Skimming" is probably the best way to read the book. It can be heavy going. And I have a feeling you'd get indigestion from it. But actually, I really hope you'll read it. I'd be fascinated by your take on it.
Posted by: david | February 23, 2005 at 03:24 PM
I mostly flipped through it reading whatever paragraph caught my eye. Nothing I saw made me want to buy it, and I distinctly remember being annoyed. Meaningless thoughts given how little of it I actually read. If I ever read it, I'll be sure to take notes and write a full review. Until then, youcan safely discard ny nascent opinion on it.
Posted by: Mis-nagid | February 23, 2005 at 03:36 PM
David, I have many thoughts/opinions about this and hope to blog on it one of these days in-depth. Am so glad you've brought it up. It is exhausting to be self-reflective isn't it?
Posted by: Tamar | February 23, 2005 at 04:46 PM
Tamar:
Self-reflective is one thing. Self-absorbed is another. Hope I'm not over the line! Judaism is a slippery slope that way. Funny thing is: so is Buddhism, but mostly for Western Buddhists, who think they're being selfless when all they're doing is meditating on themselves.
Posted by: david | February 23, 2005 at 04:58 PM
You only translated the -doxy part of orthodoxy. The "ortho" part, i think, means "straight" or "right," as in orthodontia and orthopedics. So everybody not only has their own little opinions, but everybody thinks theirs are right. Haven't you ever heard anyone going around talking about the need to "straighten out" others?
Posted by: amba | February 23, 2005 at 09:54 PM
Dear Ann-Sister: Right you are.
"Make straight in the desert a highway for our God, Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked places shall be made straight and the rough places smooth." (Isaiah 40:3-4)
In other words, get things "Ortho" -- here comes God!
Posted by: david | February 24, 2005 at 06:49 AM
Iris Murdoch says somewhere that a dog turd, if viewed with full and devoted attention, can glow with the light of eternity. (She says it better than that.) That's why people can achieve wisdom by following orthodoxies, and that's why Zen doesn't care what else you follow besides Zen.
Posted by: Richard Lawrence Cohen | February 25, 2005 at 03:58 PM
Holy dog turd, I found it! THE SEA, THE SEA (her best novel), p, 430, near bottom, of the Penguin paperback:
"If even a dog's tooth is truly worshipped it glows with light."
From the context, I gather it may have been said earlier in the book too.
Posted by: Richard Lawrence Cohen | February 25, 2005 at 04:39 PM