[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Good points. The way I see it a person can take one of two divergent paths when starting to figure out what the OT is talking about. Either you take the secular path (we can read Frye and Harold Bloom for good starters) or you can plunge right into the Rabbinic commentaries. These are extremely vast, deep and go way back into commentaries gathered up in the Talmud. Way back. Frankly, after looking at the secular writers I prefer the Rabbinic writers, even if they are flawed and full of their own belief systems shortcomings. Having said that, there are Rabbi's and there are Rabbi's. It takes years to figure out who is appealing. Believe me, most Jews never take a deeper interest beyond Rashi and that is just fine. Some take the time to read deeper analysis and it just gets harder to comprehend as you go along. The mystical interpretations are all but impossible to really grasp. My choice, as I say is to work with the Rabbinic commentaries. Other people just stay away from them and well, that's their choice. fred [snip]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
1. Divergent paths? Not all paths lead to the source of paths, the giver of paths? And there are only two paths? 2. In what way is Frye's path secular? What is secular about Frye, an ordained minister? Harold Bloom is another kettle of fish, to be sure. 3. Rabinic commentaries lead you to an understanding better and faster than a mind well-trained to read the original and translations into several different languages? And this is so in spite of the fact that these commentaries are almost impossible to grasp? Isn't grasping the whole point of the exercise, since grasping is union with the light of understanding? And if this understanding comes, wether slow or instant, with difficult labor or with easy flight, then how was the path secular or in any way inferior? It is true that contemporary writers who really understand the depth of anagogic language are far and few between. We do live in a fundamentalist age. Even so, have you read Frye's book on William Blake? It is still the best guide yet produced on a writer who is every bit as much a prophet as any of the OT writers. But, as Blake says, I give you the end of a golden string--just wind it up into a ball and it will lead you in at heaven's gate. That it seems to me would be the point. The reader learns to do this with the words of a prophet rather than trying to grasp something almost impossible--another critic's way of winding up that string. Which is more direct? It is also true that commentary such as you describe can indeed be instructive. But it is my experience in teaching/writing/translating poetry to students/writers/poets from pre-school to grad school, that children are better at understanding metaphor than are scholars. Take that simple poem in my last post, Poem Written Dream-Side. In it, an old wisteria tree is mentioned. When I have taught this poem in grad school, people needed a footnote as to what sort of cultural symbol the wisteria tree is in China. Eighth graders figured it out all by themselves based on their reading of the text of the poem itself. And when they figured it out, that figuring gave them the light of understanding in memorable aha-experiences. They needed a footnote for dragons and snakes, but not for orioles. Have those commentators taught you to do as well as these eighth graders, consulting only the text of the translation of this poem? I'll give you the footnote for dragons and snakes. The Chinese dragon is a cultural symbol akin to the Thunderbird of Native Americans, the giant bird, Garuda of the Hindu pantheon. He is Mercury of the Roman gods and Hermes in Greek mythology. In the Christian imagination, the Archangel Michael serves as God's messenger, as the interface between the relative and the Absolute. The dragon is God's inspiration, and he is the creativity of Spring, of Spring rain, and of fertility. He is also the emperor and his nobility in seeking the pearl of wisdom. Snakes are a symbol of siddha power, especially the power to heal, as we can still guess in the staff of Mercury (Hermes) with its entwined serpents that still often decorates the offices of doctors and dentists. Now, given this information, and the text of Chin Kuan's poem, can you arrive at what the wisteria tree means in this poem? a --- boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good points. The way I see it a person can take one of two divergent paths when starting to figure out what the OT is talking about. Either you take the secular path (we can read Frye and Harold Bloom for good starters) or you can plunge right into the Rabbinic commentaries. These are extremely vast, deep and go way back into commentaries gathered up in the Talmud. Way back. Frankly, after looking at the secular writers I prefer the Rabbinic writers, even if they are flawed and full of their own belief systems shortcomings. Having said that, there are Rabbi's and there are Rabbi's. It takes years to figure out who is appealing. Believe me, most Jews never take a deeper interest beyond Rashi and that is just fine. Some take the time to read deeper analysis and it just gets harder to comprehend as you go along. The mystical interpretations are all but impossible to really grasp. My choice, as I say is to work with the Rabbinic commentaries. Other people just stay away from them and well, that's their choice. fred [snip] Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Hi there. Comments are below. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Divergent paths? Not all paths lead to the source of paths, the giver of paths? And there are only two paths? I generalized to make a point. The secular worlds take on Biblical text analysis is worlds apart from Rabbinic exegisis. I get the impression that you've not done much reading of these here Rabbi's I'm referring to. A great beginning is from a fantastic translation of the OT into English by the late and very great Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. The Living Torah http://www.amazon.com/Living-Torah-Translation-introduction-bibliography\ /dp/0940118726/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1203631250sr=1-12 http://www.amazon.com/Living-Torah-Translation-introduction-bibliograph\ y/dp/0940118726/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1203631250sr=1-12 2. In what way is Frye's path secular? What is secular about Frye, an ordained minister? Harold Bloom is another kettle of fish, to be sure. As I indicated above their approach is literary and the Rabbi's is religious. They are just two different and divergent approaches. 3. Rabinic commentaries lead you to an understanding better and faster than a mind well-trained to read the original and translations into several different languages? And this is so in spite of the fact that these commentaries are almost impossible to grasp? Isn't grasping the whole point of the exercise, since grasping is union with the light of understanding? And if this understanding comes, whether slow or instant, with difficult labor or with easy flight, then how was the path secular or in any way inferior? You wrote Rabinic commentaries lead you to an understanding better and faster than a mind well-trained to read the original and translations into several different languages? Think about what you just said. Whose mind is well trained to read the original? A Rabbi or a university professor of English? I'm not entirely sure of your point. These generations of Rabbi's understood the original text and the translations into Aramaic (and way back in the Talmudic timestranslations into Greek and Latin) a whole bunch better than anyone living today. Today, for us in this generation, some of those rabbinic commentaries are very hard to grasp, especially the more mystical ones. Grasping is part of the exercise. If someone arrives at a deeper level of understanding then it matters little in which manner your approach was. I highlighted the different approaches and my view that the Rabbinic/religious approach was probably closer to the inner essence. The Rabbi's did not have a patent on learning or insight. They did hold a tradition of exegisis that predates the Greek and Roman Empires, so they have where to stand in terms of our respect. Perhaps you forget how old the realms of Jewish intellectual investigations are? They go back to the exile in Babylonia (in terms of the beginning of Rabbinic schools). It is very old and very well established. It is true that contemporary writers who really understand the depth of anagogic language are far and few between. We do live in a fundamentalist age. Even so, have you read Frye's book on William Blake? Yes, it is wonderful and very deep. It is still the best guide yet produced on a writer who is every bit as much a prophet as any of the OT writers. Many academics think this of Blake. I do not hold that Blake was on the same level as the OT prophets. But, as Blake says, I give you the end of a golden string--just wind it up into a ball and it will lead you in at heaven's gate. That it seems to me would be the point. The reader learns to do this with the words of a prophet rather than trying to grasp something almost impossible--another critic's way of winding up that string. I do not think you quite follow what the role of a prophet or prophetess was in the Jewish religion. They were generally granted the grace of prophecy for the sake of the whole nation. Some bits and pieces of what they gathered might have been quite mundane and pertaining to small scale events. The larger prophecies, the more familiar ones, were given to help direct the nation towards repentance and correction of attitudes. Some prophecies were couched in totally hidden allegories and metaphors that perhaps described events in the far off future. The words of Daniel and Ezekiel are very strange and describe realities that are so sublime that they appear as if these men had taken strong drugs. Which is more direct? It is also true that commentary such as you describe can indeed be instructive. But it is my experience in teaching/writing/translating poetry to students/writers/poets from pre-school to grad school, that children are better at understanding metaphor than are scholars. Take that simple poem in my last post, Poem Written Dream-Side. In it, an old wisteria tree is mentioned. When I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
I don't know about enlightened Rabbis. I know that for me the one true master was Moses. After that it becomes muddy. There is a Holy Tradition in Judaism perhaps not unlike that of the Puja Holy Tradition. It is written up in Pirkei Avot. Here is a link with the words in English: http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html These men formed the main chain-link of master to disciple that went from Moses all the way down to the end of the Talmudic era. That is a very long and largely unbroken link. There was one time in this history when the nation suffered a huge disruption and this was the destruction of the First Temple. At this time I believe that something got lost when these people were forced to go live in Babylonia. This is my theory. I believe that at some point the Mosaic Judaism which was more meditative and involving a more lively direct spiritual experience got slowly but surely replaced with a vivid but almost entirely intellectual process. By the time the Talmudic age ended, the remnants of the Mosaic techniques were forced underground and basically disappeared, with only tiny fragments left to pass on in secret groups. A big resurgence came with the Ari HaKodesh (also known as the Ari'Zal). After him came the Chasidim and a re-awakening of the mystical side of our religion. Regards, Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mahamuni Das [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you know that there is no unbroken lineage chain in Judiasm or one of its later sects named Christianity? Just because it is not completely public? There certainly are traceable lineages in Jewish Mysticism that are on the more public side. I believe the same would go for Christianity. How do you judge enlightenment? Does each disciple in the chain have to be fully enlightened, in order to pass on the lineage Shakti? JAI AMMA! Surya
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interpretation of text, especially so-called sacred text is not science, but art. The Rabbi's disagree with you. Here is a sampling of the 13 rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmudical_hermeneutics It's complex but it guides all Biblical interpretations. Regards, Fred [snip]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
OK Fred, your prophets and readers of prophets have bigger dicks than mine. But I'd still like to see you do some actual interpretation and see where you get. It was a simple enough text--but was it ONLY poetry? What does that mean? Poetry cannot reach God? Whether anything is art or science is really not a valid dichotomy when it comes to constructs made of words. --- boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there. Comments are below. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Divergent paths? Not all paths lead to the source of paths, the giver of paths? And there are only two paths? I generalized to make a point. The secular worlds take on Biblical text analysis is worlds apart from Rabbinic exegisis. I get the impression that you've not done much reading of these here Rabbi's I'm referring to. A great beginning is from a fantastic translation of the OT into English by the late and very great Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. The Living Torah http://www.amazon.com/Living-Torah-Translation-introduction-bibliography\ /dp/0940118726/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1203631250sr=1-12 http://www.amazon.com/Living-Torah-Translation-introduction-bibliograph\ y/dp/0940118726/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1203631250sr=1-12 2. In what way is Frye's path secular? What is secular about Frye, an ordained minister? Harold Bloom is another kettle of fish, to be sure. As I indicated above their approach is literary and the Rabbi's is religious. They are just two different and divergent approaches. 3. Rabinic commentaries lead you to an understanding better and faster than a mind well-trained to read the original and translations into several different languages? And this is so in spite of the fact that these commentaries are almost impossible to grasp? Isn't grasping the whole point of the exercise, since grasping is union with the light of understanding? And if this understanding comes, whether slow or instant, with difficult labor or with easy flight, then how was the path secular or in any way inferior? You wrote Rabinic commentaries lead you to an understanding better and faster than a mind well-trained to read the original and translations into several different languages? Think about what you just said. Whose mind is well trained to read the original? A Rabbi or a university professor of English? I'm not entirely sure of your point. These generations of Rabbi's understood the original text and the translations into Aramaic (and way back in the Talmudic timestranslations into Greek and Latin) a whole bunch better than anyone living today. Today, for us in this generation, some of those rabbinic commentaries are very hard to grasp, especially the more mystical ones. Grasping is part of the exercise. If someone arrives at a deeper level of understanding then it matters little in which manner your approach was. I highlighted the different approaches and my view that the Rabbinic/religious approach was probably closer to the inner essence. The Rabbi's did not have a patent on learning or insight. They did hold a tradition of exegisis that predates the Greek and Roman Empires, so they have where to stand in terms of our respect. Perhaps you forget how old the realms of Jewish intellectual investigations are? They go back to the exile in Babylonia (in terms of the beginning of Rabbinic schools). It is very old and very well established. It is true that contemporary writers who really understand the depth of anagogic language are far and few between. We do live in a fundamentalist age. Even so, have you read Frye's book on William Blake? Yes, it is wonderful and very deep. It is still the best guide yet produced on a writer who is every bit as much a prophet as any of the OT writers. Many academics think this of Blake. I do not hold that Blake was on the same level as the OT prophets. But, as Blake says, I give you the end of a golden string--just wind it up into a ball and it will lead you in at heaven's gate. That it seems to me would be the point. The reader learns to do this with the words of a prophet rather than trying to grasp something almost impossible--another critic's way of winding up that string. I do not think you quite follow what the role of a prophet or prophetess was in the Jewish religion. They were generally granted the grace of prophecy for the sake of the whole nation. Some bits and pieces of what they gathered might have been quite mundane and pertaining to small scale events. The larger prophecies, the more familiar ones, were given to help direct the nation towards repentance and correction of attitudes. Some prophecies were couched in totally hidden allegories and metaphors that perhaps described events in the far off future. The
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know about enlightened Rabbis. Dan Jackson. Former MIU TA and wildman -- now a Rabbi. And then there is Kevin ? -- Catholic priest who (before taking vows) was on my 6 month course. I think we may have leaders of all religions soon closing the eyes..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there can be variety of interpretation, but it's not a free-for-all. I don't think Wikipedia's opinion is as valuable as, say, Blake's or Eckhart's. Doesn't any interpretation necessarily fall flat? After all its a little like arguing whether the unicorn's horn is yellow or purple. Given that it is all a lot of hooey, mistranslated, miscopied, and poorly documented - it will not provide any insight into what happens between the maternity ward and the funeral home for any of us. Why waste your time? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--Precisely, I agree. Besides, is there an unbroken disciplic succession of Enlightened Masters in Judaism or Christianity? No. Giving the most liberal of credit to isolated Enlightened persons in those Traditions, their successors have repeatedly failed to keep up with The Program (if there was a Program to begin with). - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: there can be variety of interpretation, but it's not a free-for- all. I don't think Wikipedia's opinion is as valuable as, say, Blake's or Eckhart's. Doesn't any interpretation necessarily fall flat? After all its a little like arguing whether the unicorn's horn is yellow or purple. Given that it is all a lot of hooey, mistranslated, miscopied, and poorly documented - it will not provide any insight into what happens between the maternity ward and the funeral home for any of us. Why waste your time? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
I'm an English major and notwithstanding Northrop Frye's The Great Code: The Bible and Literature, the OT should not, in my view, ever be read as literature or as a history book. It takes not a mental powerhouse like Frye to see that the OT and especially the Psalms and even more so the works of King Solomon are full of poetic imagery. It is the lowest form of information, in my view. What is much more sublime is what the text intends us to understand. Why read Rashi? He only touches on the surface, on the p'shat of the verse. Why? because at least you know what the simple meaning of the verse is. You want deeper? You read the Ohr Chaim, you read the Kli Yakar and you get much deeper levels of meaning. You want deeper still you look into the Zohar on the specific section of the Torah and try to get your head around what the Rabbi's are hinting at. It is almost impossible to really make sense of what they say because they speak in a language full of code words and hidden meanings that only people at their level could appreciate. So, there are many levels of interpretation, the poetic/metaphoric is the simplest and lowest level, in my view. I have to always say in my view because these are my understandings or failures to understand. Rav Nachman of Breslov, the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, wrote much and sometimes gives incredibly thrilling insights into very high levels of insight. Someone was writing a bit earlier (I've lost track with so many postings) about the raising up of the deadand a mention was made of the Rambam. Although it might be the n'th degree of chutzpedik for me to say so, I think that even the Rambam might have been in error here. The truth might be that if and when a so-called Messiah shows up that the way he teaches Jewish law might not sound like anything that has been familiar to 2000 years of Rabbinic thinking. In my view of things (all guesses) if the M will usher in a new age, then he will have to help destroy all the crusty old ways of thinking that have accumulated over the years since prophets died out. If, like MMY, he was to usher in a spiritual regeneration he might appear to be almost heretical to mainstream ultraorthodox Jews. This would not surprise me at all. What type of thinking he will introduce is beyond my imagination. I've had discussions with other orthodox J's where my position is that the entire section of the OT where sacrifices of animals and birds take place, is a misinterpretation of huge proportions. Somewhere along the way, don't know when, the mystery of sacrifice got mixed up with a literal interpretation. In other words, instead of knowing what sacrifice a goat meant, people went out and slaughtered a goat and dashed its blood about and thought that this is what God wanted. To me that part of the OT is all upside down and inside out. Closing off for now: I recall years ago when MMY sent a team to Israel...and the way I heard the story is that MMY was told about what goes on during Passover and when he heard of the story of the blood of the paschal lamb being daubed on the door lintels he was supposed to have said Oh, I didn't know that the Children of Israel had a technique to get to immortality?. When I heard that told to me I got the shivers. Cheers, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
How do you know that there is no unbroken lineage chain in Judiasm or one of its later sects named Christianity? Just because it is not completely public? There certainly are traceable lineages in Jewish Mysticism that are on the more public side. I believe the same would go for Christianity. How do you judge enlightenment? Does each disciple in the chain have to be fully enlightened, in order to pass on the lineage Shakti? JAI AMMA! Surya
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--Dear Surya: What evidence do you have of an unbroken chain of Enlightened people in Judaism and/or Christianity? Thanks. Kindly supply some names. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mahamuni Das [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you know that there is no unbroken lineage chain in Judiasm or one of its later sects named Christianity? Just because it is not completely public? There certainly are traceable lineages in Jewish Mysticism that are on the more public side. I believe the same would go for Christianity. How do you judge enlightenment? Does each disciple in the chain have to be fully enlightened, in order to pass on the lineage Shakti? JAI AMMA! Surya
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Interpretation of text, especially so-called sacred text is not science, but art. On the other hand, it's not an arbitrary free-for all either. It can be taught and learned. It is not like arguing about a unicorn's horn color unless that color has symbolic or metaphoric significance in some text in which the writer has used the unicorn to some legitimately mythic purpose. Even though it is an art and not a science, however, it is not a waste of time. What useful purpose learning this art might serve us between the maternity ward and the funeral parlor is a good question. More of that when I respond to whoever said he was a lit major and considers interpretive art to be a very low thing. Meanwhile, consider this. In Genesis 11 we read about the tower of Babel, which most folks interpret to mean that this is the Biblical account of how we got different languages. We hear, for example, that the people who eventually built that tower traveled. Some translations say they traveled in the East. Some say they traveled to the East, and some say they traveled from the East. What difference does it make after all these years? Not much, unless there is some symbolic significance to the direction of travel. And, as it happens, there may well be. If so, it would have to be consistent with the rest of the passage. In other words, it would have to fit. Since God appears not to like the tower they built and comes down to destroy it, we can assume that there was something wrong with it. He also confuses their languages. In my view the correct translation would be that they traveled from the East. They traveled away from the light of the rising sun. They traveled in the direction of ignorance instead of the direction of enlightenment. To defend this interpretation would take a whole essay, which I don't mind writing if anyone's actually interested. Now the other question, what use is the ability to interpret sacred text? The skills learned in reading literature allow us to read life better. If we want meaningful lives, we have to learn to see meaning everywhere we look. We do not learn this in our schools exactly. Even in grad school lit programs, we do not learn this. This, after all, is a fundamentalist age. The failure to read and interpret literature intelligently and deeply, especially so called sacred texts is called fundamentalism. If you want a fundamentalist population, all you really have to do is fail to teach what a metaphor is. All this, however, may be much like telling a blind man what the uses of vision might be. Perhaps we should remember that a scientific model is a metaphor. Top level scientists know the value of metaphoric thinking. a - Original Message From: Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:47:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ ... wrote: there can be variety of interpretation, but it's not a free-for-all. I don't think Wikipedia's opinion is as valuable as, say, Blake's or Eckhart's. Doesn't any interpretation necessarily fall flat? After all its a little like arguing whether the unicorn's horn is yellow or purple. Given that it is all a lot of hooey, mistranslated, miscopied, and poorly documented - it will not provide any insight into what happens between the maternity ward and the funeral home for any of us. Why waste your time? s. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Of course, there's a tradition. It just tends to get obscured in the West since we have systematically suppressed this kind of knowledge and burned people at the stake for it. But there definitely is a tradition. Normally we look to the the Platonic tradition rather than the Aristotelian tradition to find it. - Original Message From: matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:08:15 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D --Precisely, I agree. Besides, is there an unbroken disciplic succession of Enlightened Masters in Judaism or Christianity? No. Giving the most liberal of credit to isolated Enlightened persons in those Traditions, their successors have repeatedly failed to keep up with The Program (if there was a Program to begin with). - In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Stu buttsplicer@ ... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: there can be variety of interpretation, but it's not a free-for- all. I don't think Wikipedia's opinion is as valuable as, say, Blake's or Eckhart's. Doesn't any interpretation necessarily fall flat? After all its a little like arguing whether the unicorn's horn is yellow or purple. Given that it is all a lot of hooey, mistranslated, miscopied, and poorly documented - it will not provide any insight into what happens between the maternity ward and the funeral home for any of us. Why waste your time? s. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Well, whoever said Fry was the best there is? He's good, but his kind of interpretation is frowned upon these days and discouraged. Symbol and metaphor are only the beginning, but tell me, you're an English major. How far did you go? Did they ever teach you anagoge? My guess is no, they did not. My point is that a modern Western education does not encourage the kind of in-depth reading that is necessary for so--called sacred texts. But these texts themselves give you signs that a literal interpretation will not do. On the other hand, every profession tends to encourage gobbledy-gook and double talk among some adherents. So even with so-called high dudes like the rabbis you mention, you've got to do your own learning to make sure you're not being led around by the nose. Some on the other hand are deep and have much to teach, far beyond Frye So you are right. Frye is a mere beginning. Still, students must begin somewhere. - Original Message From: boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:54:09 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D I'm an English major and notwithstanding Northrop Frye's The Great Code: The Bible and Literature, the OT should not, in my view, ever be read as literature or as a history book. It takes not a mental powerhouse like Frye to see that the OT and especially the Psalms and even more so the works of King Solomon are full of poetic imagery. It is the lowest form of information, in my view. What is much more sublime is what the text intends us to understand. Why read Rashi? He only touches on the surface, on the p'shat of the verse. Why? because at least you know what the simple meaning of the verse is. You want deeper? You read the Ohr Chaim, you read the Kli Yakar and you get much deeper levels of meaning. You want deeper still you look into the Zohar on the specific section of the Torah and try to get your head around what the Rabbi's are hinting at. It is almost impossible to really make sense of what they say because they speak in a language full of code words and hidden meanings that only people at their level could appreciate. So, there are many levels of interpretation, the poetic/metaphoric is the simplest and lowest level, in my view. I have to always say in my view because these are my understandings or failures to understand. Rav Nachman of Breslov, the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, wrote much and sometimes gives incredibly thrilling insights into very high levels of insight. Someone was writing a bit earlier (I've lost track with so many postings) about the raising up of the deadand a mention was made of the Rambam. Although it might be the n'th degree of chutzpedik for me to say so, I think that even the Rambam might have been in error here. The truth might be that if and when a so-called Messiah shows up that the way he teaches Jewish law might not sound like anything that has been familiar to 2000 years of Rabbinic thinking. In my view of things (all guesses) if the M will usher in a new age, then he will have to help destroy all the crusty old ways of thinking that have accumulated over the years since prophets died out. If, like MMY, he was to usher in a spiritual regeneration he might appear to be almost heretical to mainstream ultraorthodox Jews. This would not surprise me at all. What type of thinking he will introduce is beyond my imagination. I've had discussions with other orthodox J's where my position is that the entire section of the OT where sacrifices of animals and birds take place, is a misinterpretation of huge proportions. Somewhere along the way, don't know when, the mystery of sacrifice got mixed up with a literal interpretation. In other words, instead of knowing what sacrifice a goat meant, people went out and slaughtered a goat and dashed its blood about and thought that this is what God wanted. To me that part of the OT is all upside down and inside out. Closing off for now: I recall years ago when MMY sent a team to Israel...and the way I heard the story is that MMY was told about what goes on during Passover and when he heard of the story of the blood of the paschal lamb being daubed on the door lintels he was supposed to have said Oh, I didn't know that the Children of Israel had a technique to get to immortality? . When I heard that told to me I got the shivers. Cheers, Fred [snip] Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Angela, I am a little unclear here. I understand there are difference between Plato and Aristotle but effectively they are the same tradition. One was the other one's teacher. Plato was a bit lost, Aristotle brought him home. I agree that these guys do form the basis of a rich western philosophical tradition. This is a tradition the managed to stay vibrant despite the influence of monotheism. There is no monotheistic tradition in the west. I am thinking you are pointing to non-dualism. The sort of mysticism where the individual sees their interconnection with the kosmos as a unified whole. The sort of mysticism where infinity and nothingness live together. The three monotheisms have glimpses of this sort, but they never commit to non-dualism. Even the most ardent of the mystics fall short of merger between themselves and the paternalistic supreme being. To go further would be heresy. For the most part the big 3 spend make sure a priestly class keeps a secret knowledge that the most fervent followers can only dream of. This priestly class dangles visions of heaven in front of their followers in exchange for tidings. What is amazing is how long this has been going on without anyone complaining. Then again, any complaints a few years ago meant being burnt at the stake or going through the sort of thing Spinoza had to bear. What a pleasure to live in a world were we can talk freely now. s. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, there's a tradition. It just tends to get obscured in the West since we have systematically suppressed this kind of knowledge and burned people at the stake for it. But there definitely is a tradition. Normally we look to the the Platonic tradition rather than the Aristotelian tradition to find it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
---Quite true!: (below): The three monotheisms have glimpses of this sort, but they never commit to non-dualism. Even the most ardent of the mystics fall short of merger between themselves and the paternalistic supreme being. To go further would be heresy Among the thousands of listed Roman Catholic Saints, we can search the literature for a few and far between Saints who may have realized the Self (say St. John of the Cross). Even among such persons, the idea of becoming One with God is indeed heretical and invites anathema. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela, I am a little unclear here. I understand there are difference between Plato and Aristotle but effectively they are the same tradition. One was the other one's teacher. Plato was a bit lost, Aristotle brought him home. I agree that these guys do form the basis of a rich western philosophical tradition. This is a tradition the managed to stay vibrant despite the influence of monotheism. There is no monotheistic tradition in the west. I am thinking you are pointing to non-dualism. The sort of mysticism where the individual sees their interconnection with the kosmos as a unified whole. The sort of mysticism where infinity and nothingness live together. The three monotheisms have glimpses of this sort, but they never commit to non-dualism. Even the most ardent of the mystics fall short of merger between themselves and the paternalistic supreme being. To go further would be heresy. For the most part the big 3 spend make sure a priestly class keeps a secret knowledge that the most fervent followers can only dream of. This priestly class dangles visions of heaven in front of their followers in exchange for tidings. What is amazing is how long this has been going on without anyone complaining. Then again, any complaints a few years ago meant being burnt at the stake or going through the sort of thing Spinoza had to bear. What a pleasure to live in a world were we can talk freely now. s. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Of course, there's a tradition. It just tends to get obscured in the West since we have systematically suppressed this kind of knowledge and burned people at the stake for it. But there definitely is a tradition. Normally we look to the the Platonic tradition rather than the Aristotelian tradition to find it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm an English major and notwithstanding Northrop Frye's The Great Code: The Bible and Literature, the OT should not, in my view, ever be read as literature or as a history book. It takes not a mental powerhouse like Frye to see that the OT and especially the Psalms and even more so the works of King Solomon are full of poetic imagery. It is the lowest form of information, in my view. What is much more sublime is what the text intends us to understand. Why read Rashi? He only touches on the surface, on the p'shat of the verse. Why? because at least you know what the simple meaning of the verse is. You want deeper? You read the Ohr Chaim, you read the Kli Yakar and you get much deeper levels of meaning. You want deeper still you look into the Zohar on the specific section of the Torah and try to get your head around what the Rabbi's are hinting at. It is almost impossible to really make sense of what they say because they speak in a language full of code words and hidden meanings that only people at their level could appreciate. So, there are many levels of interpretation, the poetic/metaphoric is the simplest and lowest level, in my view. I have to always say in my view because these are my understandings or failures to understand. If this stuff is all about making the ways of the world crystal clear why does it have to be written in codes and hidden meanings? Seems to me if these guys wanted us to benefit from their so-called wisdom they might take a direct approach and tell it like it is. It is more likely that the OT is so filled with self contradictions and absurd dramas that obscuring its meaning further with secret codes elevates the necessity for a Rabbi to interpret it for the poor dumb asses who think there is something behind the smoke and mirrors. What a great way for a Rabbi to come up with a following? Rav Nachman of Breslov, the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, wrote much and sometimes gives incredibly thrilling insights into very high levels of insight. Someone was writing a bit earlier (I've lost track with so many postings) about the raising up of the deadand a mention was made of the Rambam. Although it might be the n'th degree of chutzpedik for me to say so, I think that even the Rambam might have been in error here. The truth might be that if and when a so-called Messiah shows up that the way he teaches Jewish law might not sound like anything that has been familiar to 2000 years of Rabbinic thinking. In my view of things (all guesses) if the M will usher in a new age, then he will have to help destroy all the crusty old ways of thinking that have accumulated over the years since prophets died out. If, like MMY, he was to usher in a spiritual regeneration he might appear to be almost heretical to mainstream ultraorthodox Jews. This would not surprise me at all. What type of thinking he will introduce is beyond my imagination. I've had discussions with other orthodox J's where my position is that the entire section of the OT where sacrifices of animals and birds take place, is a misinterpretation of huge proportions. Somewhere along the way, don't know when, the mystery of sacrifice got mixed up with a literal interpretation. In other words, instead of knowing what sacrifice a goat meant, people went out and slaughtered a goat and dashed its blood about and thought that this is what God wanted. To me that part of the OT is all upside down and inside out. Sounds like people with modern concerns reinterpreting the bloody mess of the past. The OT is very clear on how, why, and where the animals are butchered. There is no mystery - these ancient rites are not special to the Jews either. We can be thankful we don't live in the same sort of ignorance of the world the ancients lived in. For example if I have a disease I may take antibiotics rather that slay the family goat. Ignorance. Sheesh. Closing off for now: I recall years ago when MMY sent a team to Israel...and the way I heard the story is that MMY was told about what goes on during Passover and when he heard of the story of the blood of the paschal lamb being daubed on the door lintels he was supposed to have said Oh, I didn't know that the Children of Israel had a technique to get to immortality?. When I heard that told to me I got the shivers. Cheers, Fred It gives me shivers as well that so many people are subservient to their infantile desires of immortality. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. We are born and we die. End of story. The rest is idle speculation. s.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
You ask good questions. But you would not ask a physicist to make everything in his field of study plain to any amateur, as there are some things that do require years of study, yet you do not doubt the legitimacy of his expertise. Why would the field of poetry and sacred texts be any different? Think of it this way. One of the functions of language is to name the things in the external world. And in that world we want to narrow meaning as much as possible. But there are internal worlds also--yet we must use the words we have to apply to those worlds. There is, moreover, the expansion of meaning. Western culture notably does not teach the ways of the expansion of meaning, nor does it teach us to travel in our inner worlds. But this does not mean that such travel is worthless or that it could be undertaken by someone who is not suitably prepared. As a matter of fact, there is reason to think that the poet can be of help to the physicist, as the external world and the internal world may meet (though this is still controversial). Werner Heisenberg suggested that the poet may be of help to the physicist when he said that the problems of language become difficult when considering sub-atomic physics, and I once had a conversation about that with John Hagelin who agreed with that view. If angels and devas are impulses of nature, then we may discover them in the world of sub-atomic physics and in our inner worlds as well since the impulses of language originate in para and pashyanti. Here's a simple poem for you, translated by me from the Chinese of Ch'in Kuan, a twelfth century Daoist monk: Poem Written Dream-Side Spring rain, the path is overrun with flowers; Flowers stir up the hill-side--it swarms with colors. I walk up-stream and reach the source, And there's a hundred thousand orioles. I'm so high clouds fly right by my face, Bloom into dragons and snakes and vanish in clear blue; I'm so high, I lie down under an old wisteria tree-- Where's North? Where's South? Search me... On the literal level, this is just a walk after a spring rain. The persona (the speaker of the poem , who is not necessarily the poet himself) says he walks up-stream and higher into the mountains until he reaches the source of the stream. In the second stanza, he tells us that he is so high up in mountains that the clouds are opposite face. He further tells us that he sees the shapes of dragons and snakes in these clouds. He's so high he gets confused about directions, and he lies down under an old wisteria tree. That's on the literal level. But it doesn't take much training to guess that the word source could apply to the external reality of the spring, but also to the source within, the source of the stream of consciousness--in other words, the speaker reaches TC. This might serve as your first sign that more than the literal meaning is going on here. In fact, in this simple two stanza poem of four lines each, you get a statement of CC, GC and UC, once you follow up on where the metaphors might lead. Moreover, once you see that the poem details the stages of the path from ignorance to enlightenment, you might have to re-interpret the poem again from the point of view of each of those stages. Now, did the poet ingeniously (and perversely) say these things in code? Certainly not. I know of no poet who operates that way and I've studied the history of poetry in several different cultures and I've taught professional poetry workshops at the U of I and elsewhere. If a poet can spontaneously write words that have meaning at all these levels, it's because the big Self dictates the poem. Lots of poets speak of that phenomenon. If the poet who wrote this simple poem saw the literal world as an image of the inner worlds of enlightenment, that is the way he really saw it--though there are poets who merely try to imitate that state in which the two worlds just happen to coincide. Poetry, as an art, just like music, or any other art, can be a path to enlightenment. If the world and your own life look like poetic metaphors to you, then maybe that is one of the by-products that enlightenment can bring. - Original Message From: Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:22:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm an English major and notwithstanding Northrop Frye's The Great Code: The Bible and Literature, the OT should not, in my view, ever be read as literature or as a history book. It takes not a mental powerhouse like Frye to see that the OT and especially the Psalms and even more so the works of King Solomon are full of poetic imagery. It is the lowest form of information, in my view. What is much more sublime is what the text
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
It is true that Plato was Aristotle's teacher, but it is also true that the Western tradition divides with these two and the tradition of Aristotle leads to the Western world view, whereas the Platonic world view continues in the neo-Platonists, the gnostics, and the mystics. There is a straight line, for example, between Plato, Eckhart, and Blake. But this Platonic tradition is marginalized especially with the advent of empiricism. So from the point of view of the mystics, it was Aristotle that needed to be brought home, not Plato. The dualism you speak of is the norm, but if you want to learn to read Blake and Eckhart, for instance, you would not find dualism. You would also find that Eckhart was excommunicated (posthumously--he was too smart for the Inquisition while he lived) BECAUSE he refused to give up philosophical monism. This excommunication is an extreme form of the attitude the Church has fostered in Western letters consistently to this day. And so you have to do some looking beyond the standard teachings to find it. We can talk freely in our world, but only if our talk won't make much difference. Try talking freely in grad school and see if your work will be accepted. - Original Message From: Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:37:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D Angela, I am a little unclear here. I understand there are difference between Plato and Aristotle but effectively they are the same tradition. One was the other one's teacher. Plato was a bit lost, Aristotle brought him home. I agree that these guys do form the basis of a rich western philosophical tradition. This is a tradition the managed to stay vibrant despite the influence of monotheism. There is no monotheistic tradition in the west. I am thinking you are pointing to non-dualism. The sort of mysticism where the individual sees their interconnection with the kosmos as a unified whole. The sort of mysticism where infinity and nothingness live together. The three monotheisms have glimpses of this sort, but they never commit to non-dualism. Even the most ardent of the mystics fall short of merger between themselves and the paternalistic supreme being. To go further would be heresy. For the most part the big 3 spend make sure a priestly class keeps a secret knowledge that the most fervent followers can only dream of. This priestly class dangles visions of heaven in front of their followers in exchange for tidings. What is amazing is how long this has been going on without anyone complaining. Then again, any complaints a few years ago meant being burnt at the stake or going through the sort of thing Spinoza had to bear. What a pleasure to live in a world were we can talk freely now. s. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ ... wrote: Of course, there's a tradition. It just tends to get obscured in the West since we have systematically suppressed this kind of knowledge and burned people at the stake for it. But there definitely is a tradition. Normally we look to the the Platonic tradition rather than the Aristotelian tradition to find it. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read the Bible again. Whether or not it is characterized by a fundamental dualism depends on the reader, not on the text. Also, whether or not you are calling it monotheistic depends on how you interpret the devas. Most translators have been translating that term as gods. But if you take them to be fundamental impulses of nature, then angels would be a better translation. Not angels in the modern popular sense, which gives them human bodies and goose wings, but in, say, the sense in which St. Thomas Aquinas described them, which is as impulses of nature. This is o so true. The fact is the bible is written in such a way it is open to any interpretation (if not all interpretations) rendering it meaningless. Arguing fine points is futile. The only credible critical approach to the bible is a deconstructive one. One has to take into account the reliance of the reader's subjectivity drawing from the amorphous text. Then take into account the anthropological/historical context of the original authors in order to fully understand its limitations. What sort of primitive thinking dreams this stuff up? As we have seen from history any other critical approach to the bible has been dangerous. Whole peoples have been annihilated for professing their interpretations of this text. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
The part that is alive at that time or past lives where their physical bodies still sit in graves? The literalness of this line of discussion always struck me as foolish. IMHO. I agree. Lenny Bruce showed his mother a a freshly scribed tattoo. His mother told him he would not be buried in a Jewish cemetery as a result. To which Lenny retorted, Then when I die have them cut my arm off and bury it with the goys! You wrote: The Bible isn't about Enlightenment, it's about remission of sins, getting Resurrected, Heaven on Earth (Isaiah). Of. I could not disagree with you in more strong terms. The entire story of the exodus, in my view, is one long story of how the soul, at the lowest possible level of impurity, is raised up to higher and higher levels, till at Mount Sinai, when the Lord is heard by all, everyone spontaneously achieves immortality and leaves their physical bodies. It is all written as such in Midrashim and I believe it is the essence of the Torah. What all the laws are for is a guideline to spiritual perfection leading to enlightenment, however we define it. This sort of analysis of the OT was first introduced into Judaism by Philo of Alexandra, a first century philosopher who had studied in Greece. Before Philo literal translation was the only way. However as the contradictions and failed prophesies reared their ugly heads interpretation of the OT as a symbol or metaphor became the only way to rationalize the story. The remission of sins, in my view, is accomplished by the individual when they do a complete and thorough teshuvah or return to God. We place far too much emphasis on what God can do for us instead of what we can do for ourselves (in my reading of some orthodox writing). However, there is a branch in Orthodoxy, called Mussar which stresses the role of the individual in his acts of contrition, of changing his mind and actions to those which are more spiritually uplifting to his/her soul. In Christianity the focus became the role of J as M who would cleanse the sin on the sinners behalf. Most Orthodox Judaism totally rejects this focus. It sees it as our karma, our job, not someone else's. Fred Fred, Don't you find the concept of sin odd? In this day and age we know what is considered a sin in one age may not be a sin later. For example if you respect a women as an equal that would have been considered a sin once but is not longer. Sin is relative across cultures and time. Seems we should be judging personal morality with a positive point of view; how we contribute to humanity; to our family and society; and leave the concept of sins to the penal system to sort out. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. More on the 'word' John 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament, The Preaching of Yukhanan [John]: In the beginning was the Miltha and that Miltha was with God and God was that Miltha. http://www.peshitta.org/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. More on the 'word' John 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament, The Preaching of Yukhanan [John]: In the beginning was the Miltha and that Miltha was with God and God was that Miltha. http://www.peshitta.org/ http://www.standardversion.org/article-what-is-the-peshitta.php To properly understand some of the phrases used in the Peshitta Targum, including some of the parables spoken by Messiah, one must understand the cultural setting that surrounds these first century writings of the collected Scriptures, which was a Jewish world eventually filtering into the world of the Greeks, Persians and various oriental lands. Evidence leans toward the fact that the Greek (and eventually Latin) manuscripts were translated from the original Aramaic Peshitta and other Hebrew manuscripts. Sometimes the later Greek translators did not understand the Aramaic phrases and catch words, so they had to make up phrases to make it sound the way they understood it and unfortunately these Greek and Latin translations lost much of the original meaning. Remember the passage talking about people taking up serpents? That was a phrase back then that meant Believers would deal with their enemiesit had nothing to do with snake handling. What about the passage talking about cutting off one's hand or removing one's eye? These passages have plagued Greek translators who did not understand the phrases Yeshua used. That was a phrase back then that simply meant, Stop what you are doing. In other words, If you are stealing, then stop it already!, and so on. Yeshua never commanded that His followers mutilate themselves. There are so many other examples that have crept into the later editions of the Greek simply because the translators did not understand the cultural setting of Jews in Israel. Unfortunately these same misunderstandings have crept into the modern translations of today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Mine neither. I find ancient texts interesting from a historical point of view. Aside from that they have little relevance in a world. The ancients did not know about basic things we take for granted effecting on our ethical viewpoint. Concepts like human equality, human rights, and individual freedom. These do not work in the paternalistic tribal world that brought us the five books of Moses. Well said! The lack of this POV is causing such suffering in the world IMO. (Wow two abbreviations in one sentence, I am practically texting! I feel s young.) I thought this was my favorite part of what you wrote until I found this little gem: I am making the point that the rules imposed by the OT are so diverse and arcane that we are forced to select what is for our core belief and what to throw out. We have to make our own moral distinction. In other words, it sells itself as The Law of Moses but in the end it is your existential point of view that interprets the text. Its the Law of Fred. Tell it brother! And on a Sunday morning no less. The way super religious people dodge this obvious reality in their attempt at asserting a moral high ground makes me crazy. (What...oh...OK...I am being asked to change that to crazier. Damn lawyers!) When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. Till then it's best use is in the middle of my bookshelf with the center of the pages cut out for a secret stash. (If I leave it out the adulterers steal some.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: Life is too short to cherry pick quotes from OT? Huh? It depends on what interests you have. You came to this group with a kvetch about TM based on arbitrary pronouncements made in the OT. It seems that if you are going to accept one core belief than you should be bound to follow all the core beliefs. Otherwise you are making your own moral distinctions on which of g-d's laws are moral and which are not. On the other hand, if you understand the OT to be the work of men, then you should understand it has shortcomings. After a few thousand years it has morphed through rewrites and additions. When written it certainly was subject to the social conditions of the people who wrote it. People who lived in fear of very difficult survival conditions. This colored their accounts. My central core belief system is not Gita or Upanishads or any other Vedic/Hindu/Indian opus. It's the OT; so, I refer to it over and over again. Mine neither. I find ancient texts interesting from a historical point of view. Aside from that they have little relevance in a world. The ancients did not know about basic things we take for granted effecting on our ethical viewpoint. Concepts like human equality, human rights, and individual freedom. These do not work in the paternalistic tribal world that brought us the five books of Moses. Lot did offer up his daughter, your memory is correct. The angels that Abraham had come visit him were now in Sodom/Gomorrah and were outside Lot's door when a group of locals wanted to get to know them. Lot was horrified (the Rabbinic commentary says that they wanted to have their way with these strangers - sexually, if you can believe this!) and so Lot just brings them into this house and slams the door shut. The locals won't go away, so Lot offers his daughter to them if they'd just leave the strangers alone. I do not understand a word of this part of Genesis. So, I do not know what to say. It is true that the OT has many references to slavery between Hebrews. Why it was allowed is hotly debated. Working out your karma? Honestly, its a deep subject and I'm not sure this is the venue. Its only one example I point out. There are others. I am making the point that the rules imposed by the OT are so diverse and arcane that we are forced to select what is for our core belief and what to throw out. We have to make our own moral distinction. In other words, it sells itself as The Law of Moses but in the end it is your existential point of view that interprets the text. Its the Law of Fred. I am saying drop the pretense that it anything but the Law of Fred. If the OT tells us how to live morally and we are to take it all in as a whole, then do you accept that in the Biblical days a Hebrew might end up as a slave to another Hebrew? It's a tough one Fred, my lansman, its not so tough. You know in your modern heart of heart that slavery is really really a bad thing. You know that since the 17th century enlightenment we have risen above old testament fixed dogma. Human Rights and equality have their place in ethics based not on g-d's
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. I just got a note from my penis: NOW ya tell me!. The big ten may not prescribe stoning but I think adultery in one of the death sentence commandments isn't it? No seriously, I REALLY need to know!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. Yeah. Authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity tends to adopt some of the dogmatic and contemporarily popular harsh Mosaic laws and fails to recognize the distinct [subtle and gross] break with them that Christianity introduced. FWIW - This is some of what Paul said in making that distinction: 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling [voiding completely] of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [words added in parentheses -jrm]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. Yeah. Authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity tends to adopt some of the dogmatic and contemporarily popular harsh Mosaic laws and fails to recognize the distinct [subtle and gross] break with them that Christianity introduced. FWIW - This is some of what Paul said in making that distinction: Too bad it's so anti-Semitic. 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling [voiding completely] of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [words added in parentheses -jrm]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. Yeah. Authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity tends to adopt some of the dogmatic and contemporarily popular harsh Mosaic laws and fails to recognize the distinct [subtle and gross] break with them that Christianity introduced. FWIW - This is some of what Paul said in making that distinction: Too bad it's so anti-Semitic. Paul is controversial for other reasons as well. 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling [voiding completely] of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [words added in parentheses -jrm]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah. Authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity tends to adopt some of the dogmatic and contemporarily popular harsh Mosaic laws and fails to recognize the distinct [subtle and gross] break with them that Christianity introduced. FWIW - This is some of what Paul said in making that distinction: 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 Yea, I like this. Given what we know about people in power doing anything to hold on to power, it's kinda hard to argue that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Yet Fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews who have converted to Christianity as completed Jews. Ouch! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: snip 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 Yea, I like this. Given what we know about people in power doing anything to hold on to power, it's kinda hard to argue that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. Actually it's dead easy to argue. The messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures--who is to take down the people in power--is to be a human being. The notion of a divine messiah was (and is) the worst kind of blasphemy in Judaism. What Paul is claiming here is that Jews are essentially too spiritually stupid to recognize that their own scriptures are wrong. Yet Fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews who have converted to Christianity as completed Jews. Right. Toss out the Jewish Scriptures, and your Jewishness will be complete. To my mind, that's hard to beat for offensiveness. (And my heritage, BTW, is Christian.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Thanks for feedback. I guess the messiah the Jews are expecting, has yet to come, obviously. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: snip 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 Yea, I like this. Given what we know about people in power doing anything to hold on to power, it's kinda hard to argue that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. Actually it's dead easy to argue. The messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures--who is to take down the people in power--is to be a human being. The notion of a divine messiah was (and is) the worst kind of blasphemy in Judaism. What Paul is claiming here is that Jews are essentially too spiritually stupid to recognize that their own scriptures are wrong. Yet Fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews who have converted to Christianity as completed Jews. Right. Toss out the Jewish Scriptures, and your Jewishness will be complete. To my mind, that's hard to beat for offensiveness. (And my heritage, BTW, is Christian.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 Yea, I like this. Given what we know about people in power doing anything to hold on to power, it's kinda hard to argue that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. Actually it's dead easy to argue. The messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures--who is to take down the people in power--is to be a human being. The notion of a divine messiah was (and is) the worst kind of blasphemy in Judaism. What Paul is claiming here is that Jews are essentially too spiritually stupid to recognize that their own scriptures are wrong. Yet Fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews who have converted to Christianity as completed Jews. Right. Toss out the Jewish Scriptures, and your Jewishness will be complete. To my mind, that's hard to beat for offensiveness. (And my heritage, BTW, is Christian.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
I came to this group with a complex set of feelings about TMO, TM and MMY. I have expressed both my list of grievances and things I loved, the things I loved list got ignored. I do not think I'm looking at my experience or my knowledge of the TM thing ONLY from the OT lense. That's not fair to me. I use the OT as one central belief system to issue my ONE grievance with TM which is the mantra/puja thing and I don't think I've been cheery picking. I believe that TM/puja/mantra as taught to me is forbidden within my own understanding of the OT. I am not trying to tell anyone to climb on my bandwagon or except anything I have to say. It's my thing. Everyone is free to tell me to get lost and that they have no interest in my point of view. However, some people are interested in examining the grievances I expressed because they might be common to some. I have not got answers really, but lots of questions. I also have a belief that the OT in whatever way we pick and choose the chapters and verse is in opposition to TM. Other than that, it's no big deal. In what way have I made arbitrary pronouncements? I have quoted what I thought and still think are relevant verses. If you don't follow the OT, then sure it's all pick and choose and that's fine for you. I do not understand the OT to be the work of men. The OT (including the prophets) is entirely a work of prophecy from beginning to end. What it all means I don't really know. But, a congress of men getting together and making up the Five Books of Moses, no I don't believe that. I believe that our 5 books is the same one Moses gave. These so-called re-writes of the OT, can you please list some examples? The oldest texts found at Qumram are almost 100% the same as the ones we have today. So, what do you have in mind? Old texts are interesting from a historical perspective. I agree. However, the OT is not a history book nor should it be read as such. In my view. You say that the old texts (presumably OT) have no relevance in todays world? Huh? Where did you think that most of the ethics and moral codes in the Western world get their groundworks from? The Celts? The Druids? The Picts? No. It comes from the Ten Commandments down. Your idea that Biblical Israel having no human rights is quite odd to me. They had all kinds of rights but they also had all kinds of laws and restrictions and appeal processes, etc. I really don't recognize that world you're describing at all. When did I ever say I had trouble with the concept of slavery? I am against it now and always have been. That doesn't mean that it was not referred to in the OT. It means I do not understand how it came about in that time. I would have thought that a people who had been redeemed from slavery would have abolished it as part of their legal code. They did not, I do not understand that and I leave it like that. I have no answer. I am also against slavery, period. Much is written about how we evolved as a society during and after the European Enlightenment. I have spent the last while reading quite a bit about the Pocahontas/John Smith story. Let me tell you. The treatment of natives in North, Central and South America has been a holocaust from beginning to end. The damage done to natives as far up as the Yukon, North West Territories, having their children stolen from them to be brought up in schools run by Priests, not allowing them to speak their languagedon't get me started...I am disgusted with European Enlightenment. It might have brought us great art, it also brought us the Nazi's, the Gulag, etc. The Enlightenment didn't contain the slaughter of various Christian groups against each other for centuries... Regards, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
An additional fwiw, from the Jewish perspective, all non-Jews, or put another way, the sons of Noah, are required to abide by the some but not all of the Ten Commandments. Non-Jews are not expected to keep the Sabbath. But, all the laws pertaining to respect of elders, non-killing, non-theft, etc. are expected to be lived and followed by all. Regards, Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet Fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews who have converted to Christianity as completed Jews. Ouch! I thank you guys to further my point. But I am not sure we serve the side of rational discussion best by pinning this thing on the fundy xtians. As I write I keep thinking of Maslow's Heirarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs , which is one of many rational representations of ethical understanding dating back to the Ancient Greeks. Western civ, has a wealthy tradition of working out ethical and moral structures without relying on ancient myths. Adams and Jefferson did a pretty good job of institutionalizing this secular philosophy. The fundy xtians are not the only ones guilty a regressive tribal religious assault on society. Moderates of all colors and all forms of monotheism harbor some form of regression simply by supporting myth over logos. For the most part this exhibiting regressive behavior is not dangerous, sometimes its quaint - look at the Amish. But there are times public policy is shaped by misinformed mythos. In an earlier post I gave the example of the nature-vs.-man viewpoint that holds back political movement on the pollution of our fine planet. But how about our foreign policy on health? Its not only the radical nuts that have allowed disease to spread internationally in the name of some sort of religious prudery. It takes the backing of nice moderate church/synagoge/mosque goers for these policies to erupt that suppress condom usage and vaccines in Africa. Did Paul, Moses, or Josh have pure intentions? We will never know, because the actual account of their lives does not exist. We are left with texts that were left threadbare by early scribes. Do they have anything relevant to add to the discussion? Yes. They remind us that the past is part of an evolutionary social/political process, and we have to move on or keep repeating horrible mistakes. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for feedback. I guess the messiah the Jews are expecting, has yet to come, obviously. True, except for those Jews who believe Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Right. It this makes sense to you. There are so many ways you can technically disqualify Jesus as the Jewish messiah. And I have no desire to get into that argument. But when you take the big picture - the old testament, and the new testament, and the events of that period, don't ya have to sort come to the conclusion that Jesus was the one the Jews were expecting, and that the power brokers of the time had a vested interest to make it not so, lest they lose their hold. That said, I really don't care one way or the other. I've made my own peace with this issue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Thanks for feedback. I guess the messiah the Jews are expecting, has yet to come, obviously. True, except for those Jews who believe Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I came to this group with a complex set of feelings about TMO, TM and MMY. I have expressed both my list of grievances and things I loved, the things I loved list got ignored. [snip] Fred, I recall your post with the things you loved. It is hard to respond because what you loved was your experiences with the siddhis, especially yogic flying, and you experience of feeling jolts of something akin to electricity running through you. I am loath to judge your experience. I love to hear about these kinds of experiences and sometimes wonder what they might mean, but it is tough to talk to someone about their experiences. Maybe if we visited face to face and I could quiz you and you could quiz me, each taking the other's measure, and each of us might learn something. Or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right. It this makes sense to you. There are so many ways you can technically disqualify Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Technically? Whether a person is human or divine is just a technicality?? And I have no desire to get into that argument. But when you take the big picture - the old testament, and the new testament, and the events of that period, don't ya have to sort come to the conclusion that Jesus was the one the Jews were expecting, and that the power brokers of the time had a vested interest to make it not so, lest they lose their hold. No, you don't have to come to that conclusion. The prophesied messiah of the Jews was supposed to *depose* the power brokers and release the Jews from their oppression, not be the power brokers' victim (much less be the inadvertent cause of the Jews' continued oppression). Even assuming Jesus was only human and thus eligible to be the Jewish messiah, he would have been a *failed* Jewish messiah. Or is the fact that he didn't accomplish the whole *point* of being the messiah just another technicality? He wasn't the only such failure, either. There were dozens of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants Nor is it clear, for that matter, that Jesus himself ever claimed to be the Jewish messiah. (I personally don't believe Jesus was anything but a fully enlightened human being and a great spiritual teacher, but I have no quarrel with those who believe he was the divine savior, only-begotten son of God, etc. I just wish Christianity hadn't piggybacked on the Jewish messiah as a way of validating that belief. It wasn't necessary, it didn't make sense scripturally, and it has caused no end of misery for the Jews.) Here's a list of the requirements for the messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures: --The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26) --Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4) --The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17) --He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10) --The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with fear of God (Isaiah 11:2) --Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) --Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) --He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) --All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12) --Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) --There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8) --l of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19) --All of the Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11) --He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7) --Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5) --The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23) --The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) --Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9) --The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot --He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9) --Jews will know the Torah without study (Jeremiah 31:33) --He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4) --He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
I have a messiah question! Does the Jewish messiah work for everyone or what happens to the rest of us who aren't? - Original Message - From: lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D Right. It this makes sense to you. There are so many ways you can technically disqualify Jesus as the Jewish messiah. And I have no desire to get into that argument. But when you take the big
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Whoa, this is thorough. It does cause me to rethink some of the assumptions I have held. I think for right now, I will put this whole matter in the already bulging, things I used to be pretty sure of, but am less sure of now file. Thanks for the feedback. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Right. It this makes sense to you. There are so many ways you can technically disqualify Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Technically? Whether a person is human or divine is just a technicality?? And I have no desire to get into that argument. But when you take the big picture - the old testament, and the new testament, and the events of that period, don't ya have to sort come to the conclusion that Jesus was the one the Jews were expecting, and that the power brokers of the time had a vested interest to make it not so, lest they lose their hold. No, you don't have to come to that conclusion. The prophesied messiah of the Jews was supposed to *depose* the power brokers and release the Jews from their oppression, not be the power brokers' victim (much less be the inadvertent cause of the Jews' continued oppression). Even assuming Jesus was only human and thus eligible to be the Jewish messiah, he would have been a *failed* Jewish messiah. Or is the fact that he didn't accomplish the whole *point* of being the messiah just another technicality? He wasn't the only such failure, either. There were dozens of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants Nor is it clear, for that matter, that Jesus himself ever claimed to be the Jewish messiah. (I personally don't believe Jesus was anything but a fully enlightened human being and a great spiritual teacher, but I have no quarrel with those who believe he was the divine savior, only-begotten son of God, etc. I just wish Christianity hadn't piggybacked on the Jewish messiah as a way of validating that belief. It wasn't necessary, it didn't make sense scripturally, and it has caused no end of misery for the Jews.) Here's a list of the requirements for the messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures: --The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26) --Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4) --The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17) --He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10) --The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with fear of God (Isaiah 11:2) --Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) --Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) --He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) --All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12) --Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) --There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8) --l of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19) --All of the Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11) --He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7) --Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5) --The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23) --The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) --Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9) --The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot --He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9) --Jews will know the Torah without study (Jeremiah 31:33) --He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4) --He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Even assuming Jesus was only human and thus eligible to be the Jewish messiah, Jesus, kicking himself in heaven, sitting on the right side of the Father, Damn, if I just hadn't been born Divine,I could'a had a shot at being the Messiah!.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whoa, this is thorough. It does cause me to rethink some of the assumptions I have held. I think for right now, I will put this whole matter in the already bulging, things I used to be pretty sure of, but am less sure of now file. Thanks for the feedback. Very gracious of you, and you're more than welcome. I enjoyed putting it together. In the interests of being fair and balanced, I should say that a dedicated Christian would be able to give you a pretty good argument on the other side. And I'm very, very far from an authority for the Jewish side; I've only hit a couple of the high spots (with an assist from Wikipedia on the list of requirements). It's just that the Christian case isn't as much of a slam-dunk as some might have you believe. It *needs* a good argument. And of course we're never likely to know for sure in this life. Ultimately, it's a matter of faith.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
On Feb 17, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Kirk wrote: I have a messiah question! Does the Jewish messiah work for everyone or what happens to the rest of us who aren't? It's a minimum wage job, Kirk, The rest of you gotta wait for Messiah #2. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a messiah question! Does the Jewish messiah work for everyone or what happens to the rest of us who aren't? Yeah, he pretty much fixes everything for everybody. The descriptions of the reign of the messiah read very much like those of TM's Age of Enlightenment. Gentiles don't become Jewish (unless they want to), but they look to the Jews for spiritual leadership, and righteous gentiles will partake in the World to Come (as they always have, but now the conditions for them to be righteous will be much more favorable). The idea of the messiah as a single person, BTW, is the more Orthodox view. More liberal flavors of Judaism speak of the messianic age, in which Jews and gentiles will have worked together to bring about tikkun olam, the repair of the world. (boyboy, please chime in to correct my mistakes or just to expand on the theme!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Life is too short to cherry pick quotes from OT? Huh? It depends on what interests you have. My central core belief system is not Gita or Upanishads or any other Vedic/Hindu/Indian opus. It's the OT; so, I refer to it over and over again. Lot did offer up his daughter, your memory is correct. The angels that Abraham had come visit him were now in Sodom/Gomorrah and were outside Lot's door when a group of locals wanted to get to know them. Lot was horrified (the Rabbinic commentary says that they wanted to have their way with these strangers - sexually, if you can believe this!) and so Lot just brings them into this house and slams the door shut. The locals won't go away, so Lot offers his daughter to them if they'd just leave the strangers alone. I do not understand a word of this part of Genesis. So, I do not know what to say. It is true that the OT has many references to slavery between Hebrews. Why it was allowed is hotly debated. Working out your karma? Honestly, its a deep subject and I'm not sure this is the venue. If the OT tells us how to live morally and we are to take it all in as a whole, then do you accept that in the Biblical days a Hebrew might end up as a slave to another Hebrew? It's a tough one Regards, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Life is too short to cherry pick quotes from OT? Huh? It depends on what interests you have. You came to this group with a kvetch about TM based on arbitrary pronouncements made in the OT. It seems that if you are going to accept one core belief than you should be bound to follow all the core beliefs. Otherwise you are making your own moral distinctions on which of g-d's laws are moral and which are not. On the other hand, if you understand the OT to be the work of men, then you should understand it has shortcomings. After a few thousand years it has morphed through rewrites and additions. When written it certainly was subject to the social conditions of the people who wrote it. People who lived in fear of very difficult survival conditions. This colored their accounts. My central core belief system is not Gita or Upanishads or any other Vedic/Hindu/Indian opus. It's the OT; so, I refer to it over and over again. Mine neither. I find ancient texts interesting from a historical point of view. Aside from that they have little relevance in a world. The ancients did not know about basic things we take for granted effecting on our ethical viewpoint. Concepts like human equality, human rights, and individual freedom. These do not work in the paternalistic tribal world that brought us the five books of Moses. Lot did offer up his daughter, your memory is correct. The angels that Abraham had come visit him were now in Sodom/Gomorrah and were outside Lot's door when a group of locals wanted to get to know them. Lot was horrified (the Rabbinic commentary says that they wanted to have their way with these strangers - sexually, if you can believe this!) and so Lot just brings them into this house and slams the door shut. The locals won't go away, so Lot offers his daughter to them if they'd just leave the strangers alone. I do not understand a word of this part of Genesis. So, I do not know what to say. It is true that the OT has many references to slavery between Hebrews. Why it was allowed is hotly debated. Working out your karma? Honestly, its a deep subject and I'm not sure this is the venue. Its only one example I point out. There are others. I am making the point that the rules imposed by the OT are so diverse and arcane that we are forced to select what is for our core belief and what to throw out. We have to make our own moral distinction. In other words, it sells itself as The Law of Moses but in the end it is your existential point of view that interprets the text. Its the Law of Fred. I am saying drop the pretense that it anything but the Law of Fred. If the OT tells us how to live morally and we are to take it all in as a whole, then do you accept that in the Biblical days a Hebrew might end up as a slave to another Hebrew? It's a tough one Fred, my lansman, its not so tough. You know in your modern heart of heart that slavery is really really a bad thing. You know that since the 17th century enlightenment we have risen above old testament fixed dogma. Human Rights and equality have their place in ethics based not on g-d's pronouncements but rational understanding of what it means to be a human living in relationship to other humans. And don't get me started on our duty to the earth around us. The ancients really didn't get our connection to our environment. The mentality that we are somehow separate from nature, thrown out of the garden, has gotten us into big trouble. Fred, you got to really look at those core beliefs. Are you going to fall in step with your interpretation of a fixed authority? Or do you take the other path, weighing evidence, open debate, observing, and acting from an ethical standard through measured rationality? s. Regards, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Boyboy (Fred) knows of Merkabah. The contemplative technique of the Merkavah was considered one of the most advanced and dangerous techniques and was eventually [almost] totally suppressed. (Came about by a mystical reading of Ezekiel's prophecies). I think I once saw it in my mind. It is used to attach one's awareness to as one ascends. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: boyboy know not merkabah?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
It is also possible that the quote from Hebrews refers not to Mantra but to God's creative/destructive abilities using sounds. For example, it's pretty well known in Jewish philosophical circles, that God creates/destroys the Universe using sounds which in turn are associated with individual Hebrew letters. Hence, the deep mysticality hidden in the letters of the Torah, where supposedly there are an almost infinite number of hidden ciphers that show how the laws of God (or perhaps the laws of nature) work on a vibratory level. It also sheds light on how master Kabbalists like Moses used short phrases (maybe using some of God's Holy names or whatever Hebrew letters) as vehicles for accomplishing miraculous events. Word, then might have many meanings. God's voice is often referred to in the Psalms of King David. It is anthopomorphized (spelling?) to mean that Gods voice booms out and literally shatters cedars and splits waters and well, you know. Whether it works literally this way I find problematic. It conjurs the need for God to have a voice that we can hear. Not that God is limited but it stretches the point a bit. So, I am not sure I agree that word in this context has nothing to do with mantras. The Torah does not spell out everything and it does frustrate everyone, the old Rabbi's no more so than us. That's the price we pay for having descended in knowledge/spirituality and humility. I would not be so bold as to know for sure that Elijah and Enoch and a short list of others ascended to Heaven alive in their bodies. I do not know how that mechanism would work. I am not saying it is impossible but I am also saying I do not have knowledge on how it would be possible. You wrote: It was not until the middle ages that religious scholars influenced by Plotinus began talking about a soul separate from the body. Not sure. If it is true, then the Sepher Yetzirah (associated by some with the Forefather Avraham) is of very ancient age. I am not familiar enough with it to know if it addresses soul/body issues. There are other very old texts like the Bahir which might speak to this more directly. (I should take some time this weekend and look into my copy of R. Aryeh Kaplan's magnificent book Meditation and Kaballah and see if he has something on this. Probably does. I return to this book over and over again for knowledge and inspiration.) Then you wrote: I believe the body constitutes a necessary condition for the existence of soul or psyche Probably not. There is so much talk in J philosophy/mystical stuff about the instructions the soul gets in the after life or conversely what it gets just before it takes on the next incarnation. Soul I associate with spark from Hashem and it is some essence that might not need a human body, flesh and blood, in order to exist. Probably soul and psyche are not the same but I'm not sure. Chanting in the observance: This, in J is now a lost art. For example, all of Tihillim, the Psalms, are written with musical notes, which means that when written they were to be sung/chanted. All of that tradition died with the destruction of the last temple. Alas, we have no idea what it was to be sung for, how it was to be intoned, etc. The sung Torah and Prophets has a tradition and it goes on today. We don't know if the tunes we sing today are the same as 2 or 3 thousand years ago, nor do we know how fast or slow they were to be intoned, etc. I think that this knowledge is also lost. Then there is prayer. The prayers we have today date to the Men of the Great Assembly, great Rabbi's who were the spiritual leaders while the J's were all over in Iraq, living in their forced new homes. These men created the formality of the prayers to give to the simple people who had little education and who craved something to organize their devotions. With the Temple in ruins and the temple activities gone, this made a lot of sense. We do not know if while in Iraq (ok, Babylon) these prayers were given to be chanted out loud or to be said very quietly or whether they were to said sitting down or standing up. All of those practices got made up along the many years and who knows how it was originally. It's lost to us. There might have been (now lost) techniques that took words from Psalms or the Torah and were used like mantras the way we understand them. I have no trouble seeing them using words as a walking technique and also no trouble seeing them used as a contemplative vehicle (by some) to achieve high levels. Remember: several key prophets acheived their nevuah in Babylon. They had functional and very effective techniques. Quoting it does not make it anymore truthful or moral. Not sure what you mean. I usually quote from the Torah to make a point and whether it is the truth or of moral value, I leave up to the reader. Finally: I am not familiar just off the top of my
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Or descends. Sounds like Magical Net Buddhist practices. - Original Message - From: boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D Boyboy (Fred) knows of Merkabah. The contemplative technique of the Merkavah was considered one of the most advanced and dangerous techniques and was eventually [almost] totally suppressed. (Came about by a mystical reading of Ezekiel's prophecies). I think I once saw it in my mind. It is used to attach one's awareness to as one ascends. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: boyboy know not merkabah? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Not from what I've read. From one small point of view you could use the word descend. The awareness hovers over the M and then you descend into it, as if you were sort of slipping into a vehicle that was going to transport you. It was a sort of metaphysical transport of types, I guess? Not sure. Not familiar with Magical net B practice. M technique took a lot of preperation and you really had to have a strong mind and great powers of self control. It was also dangerous and you could sort of go wonkers or loose your mind, whatever that means. Not for novices or the merely curious. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or descends. Sounds like Magical Net Buddhist practices. - Original Message - From: boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D Boyboy (Fred) knows of Merkabah. The contemplative technique of the Merkavah was considered one of the most advanced and dangerous techniques and was eventually [almost] totally suppressed. (Came about by a mystical reading of Ezekiel's prophecies). I think I once saw it in my mind. It is used to attach one's awareness to as one ascends. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: boyboy know not merkabah? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
boyboy know not merkabah?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- Cherry-picking statements as well as looking at the whole can be of value, depending upon one's intentions. For example, if one says: The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, cherry-picking even a single obviously errant (misguided, a-dharmic) statement can disprove the premise. If we collect a few hundred statements unbecoming of a God-like Entity, then something's fishy, is it not? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally: I am not familiar just off the top of my tired brain what part of Genesis talks about selling your daughter into sexual slavery. Can you quote the chapter/lines? Best regards, Fred [anip] Life is too short to go through and transcribe stuff out of the OT. I seem to remember it came either when Lot or Noah had some travelers over to his house and he offered up his daughter for their pleasure. Here is a quote in the same tone. I hope it will be as helpful to you as it has been to me. I just never know what to do with my slaves: Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1: Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. I am so happy we have the OT because it tells us how to live morally. The trick is not to cherry pick g-d's word that would be making our own moral distinctions. Better to take it as a whole. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Finally: I am not familiar just off the top of my tired brain what part of Genesis talks about selling your daughter into sexual slavery. Can you quote the chapter/lines? Best regards, Fred [anip] Life is too short to go through and transcribe stuff out of the OT. I seem to remember it came either when Lot or Noah had some travelers over to his house and he offered up his daughter for their pleasure. Here is a quote in the same tone. I hope it will be as helpful to you as it has been to me. I just never know what to do with my slaves: Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1: Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. I am so happy we have the OT because it tells us how to live morally. The trick is not to cherry pick g-d's word that would be making our own moral distinctions. Better to take it as a whole. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally: I am not familiar just off the top of my tired brain what part of Genesis talks about selling your daughter into sexual slavery. Can you quote the chapter/lines? Best regards, Fred [anip] Life is too short to go through and transcribe stuff out of the OT. I seem to remember it came either when Lot or Noah had some travelers over to his house and he offered up his daughter for their pleasure. Here is a quote in the same tone. I hope it will be as helpful to you as it has been to me. I just never know what to do with my slaves: Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1: Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. I am so happy we have the OT because it tells us how to live morally. The trick is not to cherry pick g-d's word that would be making our own moral distinctions. Better to take it as a whole. Stu, you've got an evil sense of humor on you. If you were to join Curtis and Geez in Fairfield for their party-down I might have to show up just to be able to share a few beers with the bunch of you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Cherry-picking statements as well as looking at the whole can be of value, depending upon one's intentions. For example, if one says: The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, cherry-picking even a single obviously errant (misguided, a-dharmic) statement can disprove the premise. If we collect a few hundred statements unbecoming of a God-like Entity, then something's fishy, is it not? Yes. We are so far beyond these ancient myths. These writings only value is cultural historic. We can look back at the past and see how hunter-gatherers moved into monarchistic societies. For the life of me I don't see how anyone can open up these old books and find anything of spiritual value. This tribal patriarchal thinking is the surest way towards hatred and death. The last 2K years of civilization attests to this. Is it Chris Hitchens who says religion poisons everything it touches? If we are looking to the ancients for ethical/moral guidance we are far better off looking to the Ancient Greeks who put a price on rationality rather than visions and magic. May I suggest Aristotle's Ethics for your reading pleasure. It was a huge hit for Christian, Jewish and Islamic scholars in the eleventh century. Changed the way we interpreted the concept of soul and what it means to be human. Took enlightenment authors like Spinoza to really see the error in sinking one's faith in dogma. Barry said: Stu, you've got an evil sense of humor on you. If you were to join Curtis and Geez in Fairfield for their party-down I might have to show up just to be able to share a few beers with the bunch of you. Dang Barry, I would love to hang with you and the gang sometime. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: Stu, you've got an evil sense of humor on you. If you were to join Curtis and Geez in Fairfield for their party-down I might have to show up just to be able to share a few beers with the bunch of you. OK, Stu, now you have to come! Where do you live brother? I can't imagine this great hang (careful Nabby) w/o Barry being there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice find, Card. This concept that the soul is different from spirit is incredibly subtle. The Greek words seem to be something like 'psykhe' for 'soul' and 'pneumatos' for 'spirit'. But I'm not very good at transliterating Greek... ;) I'd say that it is Advaitic -- soul is still part of the illusion, spirit is that which cannot be conceived, the Absolute. Now I'm going to be lost in the Bible all day looking at how the word spirit is used. I'm guessing it will be widely ranging over several concepts. Wonder what the original Hebrew language word for spirit is and if that will give us any clue as to its deepest, truest, original concept. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And now write this song for yourselves, teach it to the children of Israel, and place it in their mouths; in order that this song will be a witness for Me with the children of Israel (Duet.31:19). (mantra meditation - psalm)?? 11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. 12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it? 13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it? 14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it. Source: Deuteronomy 29:9-30:20 Note in both cases the reference to in your mouth, which might be a not so veiled reference to mantra meditation/invocation? Regards,. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. A few notes: The Word is a mistranslation in the NT for the Greek Logos. There is a lot of controversy on the exact meaning. But it definitely does not mean word like we think of word. You don't need me to elaborate great scholars go on infinitum on this. Google it. Meanwhile it has nothing to do with words let alone mantras. Judy is correct. In the old testament the soul is always attached to the body. Both Elijah and Josh ascended to heaven with their bodies. It was not until the middle ages that religious scholars influenced by Plotinus began talking about a soul separate from the body. I tend towards the old interpretation. I believe the body constitutes a necessary condition for the existence of soul or psyche. No body no soul. Kill yourself and see if I am wrong. Fred suggests in your mouth may mean mantra. It is no secret that an important part of the three big monotheistic religions use chanting in the observances.These certainly has parallels with eastern chants, but certainly is nothing like the simple work of TM where mantra and thought are on equal footing as part of a natural cycle. However, that does not diminish the positive mystical/social effects of group chanting. Western chants are very similar to traditional Hindu/Buddhist chants in scope and purpose. It is very unfortunate that the bible is written in such a way that it may be interpreted in so many ways. 2000 years of translations, transcriptions and rewrites have not helped. This book is promoted to be the work of an infallible god. Yet its reading and interpretation is subject to the whims and prejudices of very fallible men. When investigating inspiration for a moral life we are much better off inquiring within our rational faculties rather than depending on arbitrary sources such as ancient texts. Quoting it does not make it anymore truthful or moral. Fred, why don't you quote that part of Genesis that talks about how it is OK to sell you daughter into sex slavery? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Nice find, Card. This concept that the soul is different from spirit is incredibly subtle. I'd say that it is Advaitic -- soul is still part of the illusion, spirit is that which cannot be conceived, the Absolute. Now I'm going to be lost in the Bible all day looking at how the word spirit is used. I'm guessing it will be widely ranging over several concepts. Wonder what the original Hebrew language word for spirit is and if that will give us any clue as to its deepest, truest, original concept. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. More on the 'word' John 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice find, Card. This concept that the soul is different from spirit is incredibly subtle. I'd say that it is Advaitic -- soul is still part of the illusion, spirit is that which cannot be conceived, the Absolute. Now I'm going to be lost in the Bible all day looking at how the word spirit is used. I'm guessing it will be widely ranging over several concepts. Wonder what the original Hebrew language word for spirit is and if that will give us any clue as to its deepest, truest, original concept. It's *ruach* (or *ruah*), and its original meaning is wind or breath. The English word spirit is derved from the Latin term *spiritus*, which also means breath. The Hebrew word usually translated soul is *nephesh*, meaning animal or living creature. As I understand it, the concept of an individual soul living on without the body isn't found in the Hebrew Scriptures. As you surmise, the ways the terms are used, in particular the distinctions between spirit and soul, are very subtle, but they've also undergone considerable development over time, so you may find a lot of inconsistency. There's some interesting soul-vs.-spirit material in this essay by a Christian minister and theologian: http://www.cresourcei.org/bodysoul.html Do a search for the phrase There are several aspects to consider to get to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
You wrote: The Hebrew word usually translated soul is *nephesh*, meaning animal or living creature. As I understand it, the concept of an individual soul living on without the body isn't found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Correct. You'd be hard pressed to find the exact wording. There are references in prayers and in the prophets. In the prayers there are references for this transmigration and that transmigration which some take as a hint at re-incarnation. I am not entirely sure what it means, so I'm putting it in here. In the prophetsthere is the story of Elisha and his master Elijah (the Prophet). When Elijah told Elisha that he was to die soon, Elisha was heartbroken and begged a favor. As part of what he asked for Elijah told him that if certain things came to be then he'd get his wish. When Elijah left, he supposed left ALIVE and was carried up to heaven alive. Elisha's gift was to SEE him ascend to heaven with his own eyes. Hard to judge these stories. There are similar Midrashim about Aaron at his death. It was said that his death on top of some mountain was so extravagant and celestial (and witnessed consciously by Moses) that Moses requested the same type of death. I have no idea.really, who can talk to these stories? Then, last story...in the Book of Samuel, when the prophet Samuel has died and King Saul has gotten himself into a very bad situation and the Phillistines are massed for an imminent attack and nothing he has tried has been successful (including doing every spiritual technique he knew, including asking God to answer him through the Ummim and Thumim - and getting zero back), he panicked. He broke his own Royal Rule, dressed himself up in commoners clothing, snuck out at night and went in search of a woman who was a known shaman. She was known to have the ability to contact the dead. He arrives, finally reveals himself, she is terrified that she will be killed by Royal law for helping, she is furious at him for forcing her, she finally caves in and does her thing. She conjures up the recently departed soul of the Prophet Samuel, he arrives, he asks what's up and why is his sleep being distrubed. Steps forward the cowering King Saul, explains his situation. The prophet sort of sighs and says, never mind, tomorrow you will be with me. That's it. The next day King Saul dies (by suicide). Stories on the surface hint at other realities. Maybe in the Zohar or some such book you'll find more direct sentences about the subject. Regards, Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
And now write this song for yourselves, teach it to the children of Israel, and place it in their mouths; in order that this song will be a witness for Me with the children of Israel (Duet.31:19). (mantra meditation - psalm)?? 11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. 12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it? 13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it? 14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it. Source: Deuteronomy 29:9-30:20 Note in both cases the reference to in your mouth, which might be a not so veiled reference to mantra meditation/invocation? Regards,. Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
