The dark secret behind The Secret:
I see this teaching as a new age repackaging of the "sin" concept and shifting “salvation” away from God to the thinking Ego. It's the same idea as In Job - who his friends said, suffered because he did something to offend God. That Story ended with God affirming Job as a righteous man. The point of this myth is that our little philosophies always fall short of the Truth.
Ideas behind The Secret, are ego affirming for those who are “successful,” and foster a blame mentality toward those who suffer. It is possibly for the ego’s protection in not having to get involved to solve the worlds hunger problems for example. It allows for a feel good brand of compassion, without an obligation to intervene or intercede. It is itself a judgement of others which binds not frees, like a forgiving – as in healing - which restores what went wrong.
There is chaos in the universe, which allows for creativity as well as conflict. Our salvation rests in the goodwill of our neighbors – which too is the message of The Course in Miracles – the power of a non-judgmental forgiveness in the truest sense of restoring the sacred image to our daily perception.
This is not to minimize the creative power of the desires of the heart. It must be tempered however with an understanding of "mind" as a collective, complete with genetic, ancestral memories and non local connections with the whole of a living universe. Our desire for answers should not lead us to adopt flawed theories, even if they contain a kernel of truth. Learning to live with the insecurities "not knowing" allows further reflection and a more complete revelation.
Our attention is invited to see the perfection in others, always, and by that power not only can our lives change but also the lives of others. This is a needed realization – we are all in this together. If I must blame my neighbor for suffering the consequences of their wrong thoughts, I must also accept my responsibility for their condition because they are part of my life – my consciousness.
If this idea makes the ego uncomfortable and squeamish, it is likely to desire to keep the suffering masses at arms length, and say to themselves, it’s really their fault and therefore none of my concern. With this, I can now, again justify slavery, racism, class privilege, etc - because these louts won’t listen to me when I expound the Law of Attraction.
The current crop of “teachers of light” are light headed with their inflated vanities about understanding the mystery of “why bad things happen to good people.” And like Job’s accusers – they seem not now to be suffering so they must be doing something right. How does the maxim go … the higher the climb the greater the fall? A great healer said Love your enemies. All sickness of body, mind and society is a crying out within for a transfiguration; to EVOLVE. Viral anomalies of body and mind are not an enemy to be fought but a wound to be embraced and a condition of the life-force to be evolved, or liberated, with our combined intention – and the assistance of some “other power” – as say the Shin Buddhists.
We are well to learn and apply the perspective of the healer in our communal lives. Not my will be done, but Thine – the other power – by names such as The Holy Spirit, or ‘Shakti’ or whatever. The vanity of ourselves being that “other power” has never been the Perennial Philosophy. This was the mistake of the “Satan,” the ancient inner ‘shaitan’ (desire for self alone) and repeated again in today’s “Secret” teachings.
It seems to me – and this is bound to make the teachers mad – that if they really believed this was a “Law,” AND had true Love in their hearts, they would have a missionaries zeal to bring this to world, rather than endlessly repackage it for a consumers market that leaves them quite well to do. As a healer said : “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Friday, December 16, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Kabbalah Simplified:
Kabbalah Simplified:
Blake said “Eternity is in love with time.” I add; infinity is in love with form. From the Mysterious No-Thing of the Ain Soph Or (clear limitless light - reality) of the infolded order, comes the idea of being (the point - viewpoint of "I AM"). Then comes the idea of extension, as time (the line - I will Be what I will be). Then comes the idea of space (3rd dimension - I Am that, I am). Between the No-Thing of boundless infinity and the idea of form (space-time), there is a communion called kinetic energy. Energy unfolds as creation through this exchange of information (meaning) between the No-Thing and its object. It is a cosmic love affair between infinity-eternity and reflected form (dimension) for sake of self-knowledge (an information/energy exchange called gnosis/knowing).
It seems almost irreverent to say that Spirit is of limited intelligence, yet its abilities may be limited to creating and perceiving its projections. Any Omniscience is dependent on its Omnipresence in the unfolding process (G-d is One). If True, Spirit neither changes/evolves nor destroys but simply creates, knows, ceases to create and recreates based in what it knows by its indwelling. What it knows is via an intuited "felt meaning" rather than an objective (from outside) understanding. And it is thus called Omnipotent because it is the source (and life) of all created.
© Arjay 2011
Blake said “Eternity is in love with time.” I add; infinity is in love with form. From the Mysterious No-Thing of the Ain Soph Or (clear limitless light - reality) of the infolded order, comes the idea of being (the point - viewpoint of "I AM"). Then comes the idea of extension, as time (the line - I will Be what I will be). Then comes the idea of space (3rd dimension - I Am that, I am). Between the No-Thing of boundless infinity and the idea of form (space-time), there is a communion called kinetic energy. Energy unfolds as creation through this exchange of information (meaning) between the No-Thing and its object. It is a cosmic love affair between infinity-eternity and reflected form (dimension) for sake of self-knowledge (an information/energy exchange called gnosis/knowing).
It seems almost irreverent to say that Spirit is of limited intelligence, yet its abilities may be limited to creating and perceiving its projections. Any Omniscience is dependent on its Omnipresence in the unfolding process (G-d is One). If True, Spirit neither changes/evolves nor destroys but simply creates, knows, ceases to create and recreates based in what it knows by its indwelling. What it knows is via an intuited "felt meaning" rather than an objective (from outside) understanding. And it is thus called Omnipotent because it is the source (and life) of all created.
© Arjay 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
Blissipline
Intensity in Joy is a brilliant shortcut to the spiritual. ~Lonny Brown
My first encounter with Bliss was in my teens during the practice of Za-Zen; seeking the Void. I thought this joy was a result of my practice and began exploring even more intense and exotic disciplines to progress further, faster. (This I believe is trying to take the Kingdom by force as Jesu said.) It took me a decade more to realize I had rejected what I sought - this Joy without reason was the path and its fulfilment.
Then in a vision I saw Jesus, and he taught me the constant remembrance of Divine qualities and surrender of “my” power to what some Buddhists call “other power.” (Jesu also said we can not add one hair on our head by taking thought.)In short order the Bliss became overwhelming.
A spiritual “Blissipline” of enjoyment in some form is essentially all I teach now, along with assisting others to let go (let G-d)with the help of "energy psychology" models when needed. Everything else comes in its own season I've found. The spiritual paths of the sages are mostly vanity it seems and therefore most difficult to attain any liberation through.
This is a most difficult idea to grasp as we are taught nothing comes without our struggle and effort. Surely then the difficult practices reap the ultimate reward. Not so, I am convinced. The desire of the heart is to love and be happy. Follow this innate desire to its source and be carried along by its power in an act of profound surrender.
Whether to Jesus Christ, Amida Buddha, Krishna, the letting go into the other power of the life stream is the important point, not its names or messengers, though most form an initial attachment there. Perhaps these names and divisions may even become an obstacle at some point. Persist and all confusions will be resolved.
Some find this simple resting in happiness boring, and run after more "interesting" complexities of practice. This comes from an inability to gratefully appreciate the moment and become informed its hidden gifts.
There are 3 kinds of Joy to be considered here; the outward created joy, as when receiving a desired gift; the inward create joy, as when contemplating pleasing ideas or simply getting the idea of smiling inside; and the unconditioned Joy which is found in deep stillness when we let the mental forms fade. This last, the unconditioned Joy, is ever new, yet timeless and fully absorbing. There is no boredom here. This is the happiness we seek and its source. May all who wish peace, love and happiness continue in this practice.
© Arjay 2011
My first encounter with Bliss was in my teens during the practice of Za-Zen; seeking the Void. I thought this joy was a result of my practice and began exploring even more intense and exotic disciplines to progress further, faster. (This I believe is trying to take the Kingdom by force as Jesu said.) It took me a decade more to realize I had rejected what I sought - this Joy without reason was the path and its fulfilment.
Then in a vision I saw Jesus, and he taught me the constant remembrance of Divine qualities and surrender of “my” power to what some Buddhists call “other power.” (Jesu also said we can not add one hair on our head by taking thought.)In short order the Bliss became overwhelming.
A spiritual “Blissipline” of enjoyment in some form is essentially all I teach now, along with assisting others to let go (let G-d)with the help of "energy psychology" models when needed. Everything else comes in its own season I've found. The spiritual paths of the sages are mostly vanity it seems and therefore most difficult to attain any liberation through.
This is a most difficult idea to grasp as we are taught nothing comes without our struggle and effort. Surely then the difficult practices reap the ultimate reward. Not so, I am convinced. The desire of the heart is to love and be happy. Follow this innate desire to its source and be carried along by its power in an act of profound surrender.
Whether to Jesus Christ, Amida Buddha, Krishna, the letting go into the other power of the life stream is the important point, not its names or messengers, though most form an initial attachment there. Perhaps these names and divisions may even become an obstacle at some point. Persist and all confusions will be resolved.
Some find this simple resting in happiness boring, and run after more "interesting" complexities of practice. This comes from an inability to gratefully appreciate the moment and become informed its hidden gifts.
There are 3 kinds of Joy to be considered here; the outward created joy, as when receiving a desired gift; the inward create joy, as when contemplating pleasing ideas or simply getting the idea of smiling inside; and the unconditioned Joy which is found in deep stillness when we let the mental forms fade. This last, the unconditioned Joy, is ever new, yet timeless and fully absorbing. There is no boredom here. This is the happiness we seek and its source. May all who wish peace, love and happiness continue in this practice.
© Arjay 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
The Lost Art of Happiness
The Lost Art of Happiness: An End to Searching
If an-other wants to know what I mean by happiness, just get the idea of smiling inside, This somatic reference will quell most cognitive chatter the word may evoke. From this smile I learn it needs no reason and I go on to find it has no bounds. It dissolves even the boundaries between I and not I.
Here is an apparent paradox … I am the experiencer, yet without experience, I am not. Without an object, subject does not exist. Therefore it may also be said this way: I am my experience. (see: dependent origin)
I experience the "other" in a similar way. Outside of experience, the other does not exist. Experience is, and outside of experience, nothing is. I am my experience of the other and therefore we are inseparable.
The experience of myself as a pure experiencer is still an objectification, though very subtle. That I exist outside of this can only be inferred, never proved. The greatest evidence for my existence is that when I disappear into the nothingness, I then reappear – as a continuation of experience – very much analogous to the cycles of deep sleep and wakefulness. (This is related to memory)
Identity (like the meaning of life) is determined solely by my judgments. Without judgments, identity is very fluid, boundaries appear and dissolve. I suspect I am boundless, yet in this I also suspect that other and I could both merge and disappear.
In death I reason I will either disappear or continue to exist or alternate between the two, and the latter I suspect is true. If there continues to be experience there would be a boundary shift and that is all.
The whole of experience points to my desire to be happy in one form or another. Happiness, joy, bliss - whatever one might call it – is its own justification, it needs no reason or cause beyond its own will, intention or desire.This is behind all ideas of liberation, heaven or enlightenment as I see it. If there is any immortality worth having it lies in this unconditioned happiness without reason or qualification.
This lies beyond all distinctions of spiritual vs mundane. Happiness evolves itself as desires endless urge to fulfillment. Happiness evolves itself through myriad forms and beyond into formlessness of pure being.
Given that desire is self evident, happiness is self fulfilling. All else is the mechanics of a game. Be honest with your desires and cultivate happiness directly - independent of circumstances - are the meta rules of this game.
To believe in un-happiness is simply to adopt an illusory belief, which complicates the game and is absolutely unnecessary to its enjoyment. As a game, one could say that unhappiness is simply cheating and prevents the game from flowing and completing seamlessly. The game played by the meta rules ends with happiness, which is also where it started, if observed closely.
For example; the game of love is the relational expression of my subjective happiness. I can not truly say I love if I find no joy in it. As I lose my joy, its object becomes adulterated.
If I confuse the purpose of the game with love, or peace, or self knowledge, or freedom and other fine desirable things, I find I can not have them and can not share them. None of these are available in any purity without happiness. Why? Happiness is their end too. And the end is the cause of the beginning - meaning happiness is the cause of all things that reflect it.
Deus est beatitudo per essentiam
(The essence of G-d is happiness.)
© Arjay 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
G-d as Soul-mate
G-d is our soul mate say the Bauls, the wandering troubadours of India.
It is OK to say G-d is Love. Is it Ok to say G-d is my lover? In Bhakti Yoga, shringara (the erotic sentiment) is the highest form of love! How would you speak to your lover? Let that be your “mantra” or prayer to the Divine.
Jesu said in the Gospel of Thomas “Cleave wood and I AM there. Consider
that the I AM is immanent everywhere in the cosmos.
Having the universe as your lover can also be erotic, when one understands
that sex is simply an energetic exchange. One can exchange energy with
the trees and the stars, which can indeed reach an orgasmic peak as well!
And do remember that the Greek love word of the Christians Gospels is Agape, which is the same word used to translate the very erotic Song of Songs (of Soloman) from the Hebrew.
How healing and liberating it is to treat G-d as your lover - and your lover as a god/goddess.
© Arjay 2011
It is OK to say G-d is Love. Is it Ok to say G-d is my lover? In Bhakti Yoga, shringara (the erotic sentiment) is the highest form of love! How would you speak to your lover? Let that be your “mantra” or prayer to the Divine.
Jesu said in the Gospel of Thomas “Cleave wood and I AM there. Consider
that the I AM is immanent everywhere in the cosmos.
Having the universe as your lover can also be erotic, when one understands
that sex is simply an energetic exchange. One can exchange energy with
the trees and the stars, which can indeed reach an orgasmic peak as well!
And do remember that the Greek love word of the Christians Gospels is Agape, which is the same word used to translate the very erotic Song of Songs (of Soloman) from the Hebrew.
How healing and liberating it is to treat G-d as your lover - and your lover as a god/goddess.
© Arjay 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Genius Principles
The Genius Principles
1) Spirit and matter are both, only energy.
2) Energy, as it can be known, is only information.
3) Information is organized by intention.
4) This we understand as G-d and/or intelligence.
© Arjay 2011
1) Spirit and matter are both, only energy.
2) Energy, as it can be known, is only information.
3) Information is organized by intention.
4) This we understand as G-d and/or intelligence.
© Arjay 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
HEAVEN IS …
As a coach relying much on the study and personal practice of “energy psychology” I have had to re-think a lot of religious concepts in terms of my own experience rather than tradition. After some time exploring the tenets of Sylvia Hartmann’s Sanctuary Project. I have begun to re-vision “heaven” as a place where Divine Providence allows ample time and space for us to become “all we can be.”
A Jewish theologian has called our race “homo imaginus,” a people of the imagination. Surly it is that imagination in its creative and self-reflective potential is a human attribute that sets us apart as spiritual beings. We believe that “what we can conceive we can achieve.” Is this our vanity speaking or is this the fulfillment of our place in creation?
Let us take a look here at “faith,” being the evidence of things unseen. Jesu said if we had faith we could move the mountain. Perhaps it is the mountain of our inability to imagine a thing that he is speaking of. Surly people scoffed at Eddison when he shared his vision of the incandescent light. Yet it was real in his imagination, real enough to carry him through the discovery of the 999 ways it wouldn’t work and into the realm of manifestation where even the eyes of the skeptics were opened to a new reality.
One philosopher declared imagination IS reality. Consider the words of an English novelist: “We see things not as they are, but as we are.” Psychology can now show us with certainty that we are incapable of perceiving things as they are due to the filters of our conditioning and judgments as well as the limitations of the 5 senses. Perhaps this is why Jesu asked us not to judge and not to be bound by the literalism of the word, for it kills.
The spirit gives life, and we see that life’s guidance – from the Holy Spirit - comes in the form of visions and dreams and demonstrations of phenomenon that shake up our conditioned ideas of reality and bring us face to face with the apparent miraculous. And yet is it a miracle we see? Jesu said of these things he did, that we could do them as well and even greater things. Perhaps they are not miraculous but simply the activity of a mature child of G-d … an entity by the way, which we are expected to become.
How then should we begin to cultivate our future divine natures, and to what end? We begin simply enough by belief and let go of all unbelief. Yet this is easier said than done so we learn as all children learn … by imagining it first. As to what end … perhaps it is to become co-creators with Jesu in the formation of a world under the reign of heaven and the power of Holy Spirit.
And what could such a Spirit driven Heaven manifesting reality appear like?
There is a link between our thought and our body. It is this link that explains psychosomatic illness, various kinds of suggestion, and some instantaneous reversals of illness. When we have verified this connection with ourselves, it is not a huge step to consider that there is a link between mind and matter in general. This is for me what the vision of life in Heaven is like and is then translated exactly as the Lord offered in the formula of prayer … “Thy will be done, on Earth, as it is (envisioned) in heaven. Heaven then is a state of mind that eventually creates what we call sense-based reality.
This state of mind is not a “place” we go to and certainly we do not have to wait until death to enter it. It is as close as our ability to dream and like a lucid dream – having its own autonomy; being unlike my ordinary fantasy life – I can commune with, participate with, an intelligence greater than my own conscious desire.
So are you beginning to get an idea of heaven being larger than what you were told? Here are some of the things I see:
First of all, heaven is both unique to each of us and yet also shared – there are many mansions as Jesu said. Yet it is perhaps more intimate, like each of us dwelling in connecting apartments. We are never far apart, only a thought and a step away.
In heaven all whom I have ever loved are as near as my hearts desire.
In heaven I create what is needful by intention by the innate power of the spiritual gift – a gift I may not understand yet never fails.
In Heaven the tongues of angels are mine and words do it no justice for feelings are the language and like a picture are worth a thousand words.
In heaven the pleasures like the beauty of this world are magnified for this world is constrained by the limitation of five limited senses. I can here smell colors and taste a caress.
If I desire to know a thing, there are those to help me learn and messengers to rely upon simply for the asking.
All the majesty of worlds now inconceivable is now available to form shelter and nourishment and satisfy an inventive curiosity.
Space shrinks or expands at will and time runs backwards if I please that I may fill in blanks to my history/story, or erase any scene I wish to rewrite like any author would, all in the service of beauty.
This is a place of perfect safety, and any fears of demons lurking in dark corners are soothed by the knowledge they have only the presence and power you give them.
Here to my heart is an open book to those I choose to share myself with and there is room enough inside for all who would enter.
And here to heal another all I need do is heal myself of the false belief of separation and every act will be a healing one.
All here is but a divine energy and is alive as you are and thus there is no other, no loneliness, no separation between thee and G-d.
Here you will come to a great peace that whatever path you walk it is done without error for your perfection is ordained and your spirit held in the world to come awaiting your completion of the journey.
Here you find the law of relationship as Love is satisfied in celebration of uncreated and indefatigable Joy. Truly this is a paradise, which leaves no good thing unfulfilled if you but wish it.
For me this is a vision greater than streets of gold or crystal cathedrals. How about you? Perhaps today is a good day to begin living it.
Arjay
A Jewish theologian has called our race “homo imaginus,” a people of the imagination. Surly it is that imagination in its creative and self-reflective potential is a human attribute that sets us apart as spiritual beings. We believe that “what we can conceive we can achieve.” Is this our vanity speaking or is this the fulfillment of our place in creation?
Let us take a look here at “faith,” being the evidence of things unseen. Jesu said if we had faith we could move the mountain. Perhaps it is the mountain of our inability to imagine a thing that he is speaking of. Surly people scoffed at Eddison when he shared his vision of the incandescent light. Yet it was real in his imagination, real enough to carry him through the discovery of the 999 ways it wouldn’t work and into the realm of manifestation where even the eyes of the skeptics were opened to a new reality.
One philosopher declared imagination IS reality. Consider the words of an English novelist: “We see things not as they are, but as we are.” Psychology can now show us with certainty that we are incapable of perceiving things as they are due to the filters of our conditioning and judgments as well as the limitations of the 5 senses. Perhaps this is why Jesu asked us not to judge and not to be bound by the literalism of the word, for it kills.
The spirit gives life, and we see that life’s guidance – from the Holy Spirit - comes in the form of visions and dreams and demonstrations of phenomenon that shake up our conditioned ideas of reality and bring us face to face with the apparent miraculous. And yet is it a miracle we see? Jesu said of these things he did, that we could do them as well and even greater things. Perhaps they are not miraculous but simply the activity of a mature child of G-d … an entity by the way, which we are expected to become.
How then should we begin to cultivate our future divine natures, and to what end? We begin simply enough by belief and let go of all unbelief. Yet this is easier said than done so we learn as all children learn … by imagining it first. As to what end … perhaps it is to become co-creators with Jesu in the formation of a world under the reign of heaven and the power of Holy Spirit.
And what could such a Spirit driven Heaven manifesting reality appear like?
There is a link between our thought and our body. It is this link that explains psychosomatic illness, various kinds of suggestion, and some instantaneous reversals of illness. When we have verified this connection with ourselves, it is not a huge step to consider that there is a link between mind and matter in general. This is for me what the vision of life in Heaven is like and is then translated exactly as the Lord offered in the formula of prayer … “Thy will be done, on Earth, as it is (envisioned) in heaven. Heaven then is a state of mind that eventually creates what we call sense-based reality.
This state of mind is not a “place” we go to and certainly we do not have to wait until death to enter it. It is as close as our ability to dream and like a lucid dream – having its own autonomy; being unlike my ordinary fantasy life – I can commune with, participate with, an intelligence greater than my own conscious desire.
So are you beginning to get an idea of heaven being larger than what you were told? Here are some of the things I see:
First of all, heaven is both unique to each of us and yet also shared – there are many mansions as Jesu said. Yet it is perhaps more intimate, like each of us dwelling in connecting apartments. We are never far apart, only a thought and a step away.
In heaven all whom I have ever loved are as near as my hearts desire.
In heaven I create what is needful by intention by the innate power of the spiritual gift – a gift I may not understand yet never fails.
In Heaven the tongues of angels are mine and words do it no justice for feelings are the language and like a picture are worth a thousand words.
In heaven the pleasures like the beauty of this world are magnified for this world is constrained by the limitation of five limited senses. I can here smell colors and taste a caress.
If I desire to know a thing, there are those to help me learn and messengers to rely upon simply for the asking.
All the majesty of worlds now inconceivable is now available to form shelter and nourishment and satisfy an inventive curiosity.
Space shrinks or expands at will and time runs backwards if I please that I may fill in blanks to my history/story, or erase any scene I wish to rewrite like any author would, all in the service of beauty.
This is a place of perfect safety, and any fears of demons lurking in dark corners are soothed by the knowledge they have only the presence and power you give them.
Here to my heart is an open book to those I choose to share myself with and there is room enough inside for all who would enter.
And here to heal another all I need do is heal myself of the false belief of separation and every act will be a healing one.
All here is but a divine energy and is alive as you are and thus there is no other, no loneliness, no separation between thee and G-d.
Here you will come to a great peace that whatever path you walk it is done without error for your perfection is ordained and your spirit held in the world to come awaiting your completion of the journey.
Here you find the law of relationship as Love is satisfied in celebration of uncreated and indefatigable Joy. Truly this is a paradise, which leaves no good thing unfulfilled if you but wish it.
For me this is a vision greater than streets of gold or crystal cathedrals. How about you? Perhaps today is a good day to begin living it.
Arjay
AN ARAMAIC JESUS
The Jesus I know seems quite different than the Jesus of my friends, whether they be more traditional or liberal in their theology. Although I am a mystic, the main point of contention is one of scriptural translation. Whereas most translations are skewed toward a dominant Greek influence, my own preference is to adhere to the Aramaic of the Peshita, the Bible of the Middle Eastern Semitic, Syrian and Egyptian Christians. Here is my reasoning.
Ones view of the world is conditioned by the native language of the culture one is born into. When one learns a second language, it is natural that one understands its concepts through the filter of ones native speech and its subtle worldview. Translation is an art and different languages embody nuances of meaning that are not automatically carried forward in translation. This is true in comparing the Greek and the Aramaic languages as spoken during the time of Jesus.
Many assert that the Bible is properly a Greek text and seminary students learn their theology from those who are primarily following the lead of scholars of the Greek language. However it is more than likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic to people who were raised speaking Aramaic as their native tongue. It is True that Greek was the international language of commerce at this time and so many Jews understood Greek at some level. Yet those who Heard Jesus likely understood His meaning through the mindset of their Aramaic speaking culture, which has metaphysical nuances unique to that culture, that the Greek language would not convey.
It was probably for this reason that the Nazoreans (followers of the Way), somewhere toward the end of the 4th century, probably became disenfranchised with the Christianity that was growing among the gentiles, with its theology derived from the Greek texts. As they were Aramaic speaking peoples, who still heard the Gospel message through the filters of native speakers of that language, as all native speakers of a language do, they wanted a Bible in their own language so that they could take in its subtlety and richness and preserve the message for following generations. Thus the Peshita was born.
One of the problems with appreciating this view is the figure of Paul. He was a Roman citizen who probably had Greek as his native tongue. He was a self-appointed apostle to the gentiles and a cosmopolitan Jew, both of which spoke Greek predominantly. Thus we can infer, by simply examining the differences in the language of the disciples and the language of Paul, how there came to be theological disputes between the disciples of Jesus and himself. What I am suggesting is that Pauline theology was conditioned by the Greek language itself, a language embodying a very different cultural mindset, which I believe, actually distorts the message of Jesus.
There are key words and concepts, which distinguish the message of Jesus. Misunderstanding or watering down but a few of these key concepts would, and I believe has, distorted the message. For example, consider how a change in the half dozen words below, could completely alter the meaning of the Gospel - as presented in the speech of Jesus - because they are so central to its message.
Love
Sin
Soul
Life
Heaven
“Kingdom”
Understanding the Aramaic Jesus is critical to understanding the teaching and the teacher we profess to follow. I am sad to report that the churches and ministers I speak to are mostly to “religiously” resistant to examining the issue. It therefore falls on the ordinary believer to see for himself.
I think it would be good to get together with friends in our own communities and discuss what difference, if any, an understanding of these terms in the context of the Aramaic language might have for us as followers of Jesus.
Arjay
Recommended Reading: The Hidden Gospel by Neil Douglas-Klotz
(With a Biblically pertinent glossary of Aramaic words in English translation.)
Ones view of the world is conditioned by the native language of the culture one is born into. When one learns a second language, it is natural that one understands its concepts through the filter of ones native speech and its subtle worldview. Translation is an art and different languages embody nuances of meaning that are not automatically carried forward in translation. This is true in comparing the Greek and the Aramaic languages as spoken during the time of Jesus.
Many assert that the Bible is properly a Greek text and seminary students learn their theology from those who are primarily following the lead of scholars of the Greek language. However it is more than likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic to people who were raised speaking Aramaic as their native tongue. It is True that Greek was the international language of commerce at this time and so many Jews understood Greek at some level. Yet those who Heard Jesus likely understood His meaning through the mindset of their Aramaic speaking culture, which has metaphysical nuances unique to that culture, that the Greek language would not convey.
It was probably for this reason that the Nazoreans (followers of the Way), somewhere toward the end of the 4th century, probably became disenfranchised with the Christianity that was growing among the gentiles, with its theology derived from the Greek texts. As they were Aramaic speaking peoples, who still heard the Gospel message through the filters of native speakers of that language, as all native speakers of a language do, they wanted a Bible in their own language so that they could take in its subtlety and richness and preserve the message for following generations. Thus the Peshita was born.
One of the problems with appreciating this view is the figure of Paul. He was a Roman citizen who probably had Greek as his native tongue. He was a self-appointed apostle to the gentiles and a cosmopolitan Jew, both of which spoke Greek predominantly. Thus we can infer, by simply examining the differences in the language of the disciples and the language of Paul, how there came to be theological disputes between the disciples of Jesus and himself. What I am suggesting is that Pauline theology was conditioned by the Greek language itself, a language embodying a very different cultural mindset, which I believe, actually distorts the message of Jesus.
There are key words and concepts, which distinguish the message of Jesus. Misunderstanding or watering down but a few of these key concepts would, and I believe has, distorted the message. For example, consider how a change in the half dozen words below, could completely alter the meaning of the Gospel - as presented in the speech of Jesus - because they are so central to its message.
Love
Sin
Soul
Life
Heaven
“Kingdom”
Understanding the Aramaic Jesus is critical to understanding the teaching and the teacher we profess to follow. I am sad to report that the churches and ministers I speak to are mostly to “religiously” resistant to examining the issue. It therefore falls on the ordinary believer to see for himself.
I think it would be good to get together with friends in our own communities and discuss what difference, if any, an understanding of these terms in the context of the Aramaic language might have for us as followers of Jesus.
Arjay
Recommended Reading: The Hidden Gospel by Neil Douglas-Klotz
(With a Biblically pertinent glossary of Aramaic words in English translation.)
TWO VIEWS OF G-D IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Jews were divided into two kingdoms. To the north was Israel and to the south was Judea. Each had there own view of the Divine. The northern kingdom worshiped Elohim (Aramaic: “Alaha” – Unity) and the south worshiped YHVH/Adonai. These two views are present and distinguishable in the books that came to form the Jewish cannon; What Christians call the Old Testament.
Elohim was a more abstract G-d, one that was a part of the creation as well as creator. Adonai took on a more anthropomorphic guise as one standing apart from or over and above the cosmos. For the mystics, the kabbalists, this YHVH/Adonai became less anthropomorphic and more symbolic of the vast mysteries of creation. The Study of this mystery however was usually reserved for those over 40 years old and considering the lifespan of people of 2000 years ago, these secret teachings were seldom developed and did not filter down to the masses.
The statement in the Gospels about Jesus not yet being 50 years old and yet having the knowledge he did is likely a reference to the study of the kabbala. The “Father” (abba) of Jesus seems to be an anthropomorphic image of intimacy, yet is also contrasted with the objectified abstract view of Elohim as the Aramaic word Alaha (a derivation of Elohim) is used for G-d. In Jesus then is an attempt to reconcile these two views.
Historically it is the dominant view of Adonai – expressed for example as the image of an old man above the sky – which has caused the church to reject much of science as having any relevance to understanding the nature of the Divine. The rational nature of science and philosophy are likewise estranged of this religious literalism and have rejected any idea of personhood attributable to the cosmos nor even to mankind as we are simply a collection of natural substance and laws which need to be understood.
Both of these views are untenable to me and I take as my inspiration Jesus. The uni-verse is intensely personal, conscious, alive and a world of form. For example; the Jews considered that a soul without a “body” was unthinkable. In the resurrection body of Jesus we see that the “Life” he holds out to us is not as a disembodied spirit but a living form of some sort. This resurrection body need not be flesh. We can well think of this body as an energy form without the limitations of mass and its corruptibility. Likewise the idea of G-d as Alaha permits an understanding that Life indwells all form and that being so, one can even thing of the uni-verse as being the ‘body” of G-d. This may underlie the saying in the Gospel of Thomas to “cleave wood and I AM (is) there.”
So called liberal Christians who reject much of the literalness of the Bible may also find in this interpretation a way back to a deeper belief in the teachings of the Master. If all is energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed and if Life as a personal intelligence indwells all things in a mysterious unity, then many things are reconcilable.
May we come to see a vision of a Jesus for all and scrap or religious and secular separatist views? I hope so.
Arjay
Elohim was a more abstract G-d, one that was a part of the creation as well as creator. Adonai took on a more anthropomorphic guise as one standing apart from or over and above the cosmos. For the mystics, the kabbalists, this YHVH/Adonai became less anthropomorphic and more symbolic of the vast mysteries of creation. The Study of this mystery however was usually reserved for those over 40 years old and considering the lifespan of people of 2000 years ago, these secret teachings were seldom developed and did not filter down to the masses.
The statement in the Gospels about Jesus not yet being 50 years old and yet having the knowledge he did is likely a reference to the study of the kabbala. The “Father” (abba) of Jesus seems to be an anthropomorphic image of intimacy, yet is also contrasted with the objectified abstract view of Elohim as the Aramaic word Alaha (a derivation of Elohim) is used for G-d. In Jesus then is an attempt to reconcile these two views.
Historically it is the dominant view of Adonai – expressed for example as the image of an old man above the sky – which has caused the church to reject much of science as having any relevance to understanding the nature of the Divine. The rational nature of science and philosophy are likewise estranged of this religious literalism and have rejected any idea of personhood attributable to the cosmos nor even to mankind as we are simply a collection of natural substance and laws which need to be understood.
Both of these views are untenable to me and I take as my inspiration Jesus. The uni-verse is intensely personal, conscious, alive and a world of form. For example; the Jews considered that a soul without a “body” was unthinkable. In the resurrection body of Jesus we see that the “Life” he holds out to us is not as a disembodied spirit but a living form of some sort. This resurrection body need not be flesh. We can well think of this body as an energy form without the limitations of mass and its corruptibility. Likewise the idea of G-d as Alaha permits an understanding that Life indwells all form and that being so, one can even thing of the uni-verse as being the ‘body” of G-d. This may underlie the saying in the Gospel of Thomas to “cleave wood and I AM (is) there.”
So called liberal Christians who reject much of the literalness of the Bible may also find in this interpretation a way back to a deeper belief in the teachings of the Master. If all is energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed and if Life as a personal intelligence indwells all things in a mysterious unity, then many things are reconcilable.
May we come to see a vision of a Jesus for all and scrap or religious and secular separatist views? I hope so.
Arjay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
