In the world to come I shall not be asked, ‘Why were you not Moses?’ I shall be asked, ‘Why were you not Zusya?’Rabbi Zusya

Inner Life Directions

Expanding Reality

Danielle Levy

  • About Nuclear Weapons

    All we need to do to remember the dangers of nuclear weapons is remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and not only the dangers to the planet but to humanity. All it would take is one foolish leader, one foolish decision for the world as we know it to be annihilated. At the present moment nine countries have a stockpile of nuclear weapons:

    • Russia 6375
    • US 5800
    • China 320
    • France 290
    • UK 215
    • Pakistan 160
    • India 150
    • Israel 90
    • North Korea 30-40

    The list does not include would be nuclear powers such as Iran or even Saudi Arabia. Obviously, the US and Russia are way ahead. At the present they are at loggers heads on the START Treaty. The treaty seeks to limit the deployment of each at 1500, and both actually agree. But the US wants China to be included in the new treaty. China has refused on the ground that since its arsenal is so much smaller than the other two, why should it limit itself and in its view be at a disadvantage? Unless the treaty is renewed by February 2021, it will expire. And if it does the world will be worse off including China. That is because while there would be no limits, there would also be no transparency as to what other countries are up to.  Eight in ten Americans believe in nuclear arms control treaties and most see nuclear arms as a top threat to national security—the others being terrorism and infectious diseases. As important as renewing this treaty may be, fact is that the limit it imposes on its signatories are still high enough to destroy the world. Treaties are needed but the planet would be safer, saner and in a better position to survive to the future  if we would all work towards a nuclear free world.

  • Can Evil Be Defended?

    If one considers slavery evil, as I do, then can such evil be defended? It can be chronicled, described, documented, explained, talked about, criticized, shunned, reviled, ostracized but not defended. At least not if one believes in making a better world, lessening suffering, in decency, morality, compassion, ethical behavior, harmlessness, social responsibility, justice, human dignity or even love. Yet directly or indirectly it seems that is what Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark, is endeavoring to do. In a recent interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he is calling slavery a necessary evil and  linking that characterization to the greatness of the US, a country founded he reminds us on the proposition that all mankind is created equal. He has introduced a bill, Saving American History Act of 2020 that would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the 1619 Project in K-12 schools or school districts. The  Pulitzer prize winning 1619 Project was undertaken under the aegis of the NYT and traced the consequences of slavery to today’s problems thus documenting the long arms of the evils it represented and unleashed. In an age of the Black Lives Matters movement and protests, this is not a proposal that can be ignored. Mr. Cotton was duly elected and has a following which make him a possible presidential candidate in 2024. I am not in the habit of writing about politics and I admit that I may be overly direct in stating Mr. Cotton’s argument. But this is not about politics, it is about how to move forward, how to recognize evil including the evil of slavery, address it and repair the harm it has caused. Defending slavery does not fit into a race-relations agenda that as far as I understand is necessary to save the future of the United States.

  • Compassion, Harmlessness and Mary Trump

    Compassion is not only a basis for Buddhism it is also one for Christianity since love without compassion would hardly be love. It thus unifies Eastern and Western traditions and is a trait without which our humanity would be in question. Like so many I endeavor to deepen my understanding of compassion and look for its manifestations as some sort of assurance that humanity is moving forward. It is with keen interest that I watched Mary Trump’s ’TV appearances and read the interviews she gave. She was poised and her manner did not fall prey to wanton criticisms, her view evolved from facts and the inward search those facts seem to me to have elicited within her. Her honesty underlined how articulate she was and her perception though unstinting was not without cause. While some may call it cold and unsparing, I would call it compassionate. Why? Because as best as I can see she wasn’t interested in criticizing but understanding, and her efforts led her to see her uncle, our president, in relation to the context that gave rise to his behavior. She came to the conclusion that that behavior and way of being and living was dangerous, and when asked if she had compassion for him, she said she used to but does not now. Should compassion extend to actions and behavior we deem dangerous, or in my own cosmology, harmful? I would say no.  In the Mary Trump instance a chief reason is that the danger her uncle poses represents a conclusion of her analysis and pondering. She did not decide he was dangerous and then tried to prove it. That conclusion does not undo the underlying compassion that got her there, the need to understand, to sort out, to make sense, to not judge without cause. When things or people are harmful, compassion has a totally different role, and Mary Trump indirectly perhaps helps us better see that role .I, for example, do not feel compassion for Nazis or slave owners because some actions go beyond the reach of compassion. Despite some exceptions, as adults slave owners and Nazis chose to be cruel refusing awareness of the harm they were causing, just as to the best of my understanding this president is choosing harmful policies without caring about the suffering they lead to.

Subscribe and Be Notified of New Posts

* indicates required

We will never sell or share your information, we promise.