By contemplating upon the fact that contemplation alone cannot reveal the true state and nature of all temporary finite things inside and outside of you, a sense of mystery may fall upon you.
By imagining infinite living entities on the tree of life, each adding a drop of uniqueness to each moment, inside you and outside of you, a sense of mystery may fall upon you.
An infinite ever-changing ever-present universe, invites, by necessity, our rational minds to the conclusion that conclusions about any finite thing are limited by our senses and limited by our capacity and opportunity and will to form these conclusions. Even though we can be sure of certain conclusions about the totality of an infinite universe, all of the lives of the ever-changing individuals therein will always be full of mystery.
As a civilization advances to this realization (after the strongest microscopes and the strongest telescopes have their limits pushed), and its citizens finally realize the universe must be infinite and eternal – that this is the most rational conclusion about the totality of the universe, then this immediately casts a veil of mystery upon every finite entity.
Therefore, mysticism, is the natural result of the inevitable transcendence of science – when we discover the limits of observation and testability, and are forced to deduce and infer things beyond the reach of our eyes and instruments, by means of logic and integrative contemplation, and well-justified and well-defined assumptions. We are all then forced to become mystics, if we seek to advance in a meaningful way, in our understanding of who we are and of what’s going on in the world; relying, of course, on the firm footing of facts having already been established by direct observation through the rigors of the scientific method, a powerful tool for understanding things near to our size and time.
“ … now he had learnt to see the great, the eternal, the infinite in everything; and therefore – to see it and revel in its contemplation – he naturally threw away the telescope through which he had hitherto been gazing over men’s heads, and joyfully feasted his eyes on the ever-changing, eternally great, unfathomable and infinite life around him. And the closer he looked, the more tranquil and happier he was.
The awful question that had shattered all his mental edifices in the past – the question: Why? What for? – no longer existed for him.”
War and Peace
Tolstoy
Book 3, Part 4, Chapter 12
You are one “branch” on an infinite tree of life.
You are the “end result” or “meeting point” between all of what is “above” and all of what is “below” – all of what is “outside” and all of what is “inside”, and all of what is moving in between.
There are common properties between you and all the other living beings found throughout the universe – which are infinite in number and variety. There is common ground between every living thing, like there is constant motion among all living entities, all the time. Nothing ceases to move. You are continuously experiencing constant collisions with other things, all the time, even if you cannot perceive this. There is constant friction and resistance with other things. There is no vacuum to hide in to avoid resistance. The process of creating new living forms is ever-recurring inside and outside of you, and within things moving through you. Your very constitution never stands still. The process of living forms ceasing and perishing is ever-recurring, inside and outside of you, and among the infinite multitudes moving through you constantly.
In an attempt to relate their elaborate and advanced understanding of the nature of the infinite eternal universe, populated by an infinite tree of life, the authors of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Qur’an, and other original works of Semitic scripture, penned marvellous allegorical and symbolic works of fiction, encoding common significant properties among all things in the universe, with each letter of the common Semitic alphabet symbolising something basic, like motion, or resistance, or matter. These basic letters – these core symbols representing basic properties of the infinite universe, are then combined in elaborate tapestries of books interwoven with intricate nuance and letter-play in their vocabularies.
Although the infinite extent of the universe cannot be proven, at any time, by any experimental or observational means, direct or indirect; what can be demonstrated is that the authors of the Bible and the Qur'an believed that the universe was not finite, had no Beginning, will have no End, and that they encoded their advanced cosmology of an infinite eternal universe within the letters of the words of their brilliant books – the very books which modern science-zombies poop upon to no end (without even reading them).
“Emanating from Ein Sof (The Infinite) are the ten Sephirot (on The Tree of Life). They constitute the process by which all things come into being and pass away. They energize every existent thing that can be quantified. Since all things come into being by means of the sefirot, they differ from one another; yet they all derive from one root. Everything is from Ein Sof, there is nothing outside of it.
…
Ein sof (The Infinite) cannot be conceived, certainly not expressed, though it is intimated in every thing, for there is nothing outside of it. No letter, no name, no writing, no thing can confine it. The witness testifying in writing that there is nothing outside of it is: “I am that I am.” Ein Sof has no will, no intention, no desire, no thought, no speech, no action – yet there is nothing outside of it.”
Azriel of Gerona
(1160 – 1238)
Commentary on the Ten Sephirot
in Me’ir ibn Gabbai, Derekh Emunah
Warsaw, 1850
2b-c, 3a-d
The Essential Kabbalah
Daniel C. Matt
Harper-Collins 1996
pages 29-30
“The essence of faith is an awareness of the vastness of Infinity. Whatever conception of it enters the mind is an absolutely negligible speck in comparison to what should be conceived, and what should be conceived is no less negligible compared to what it really is. One may speak of goodness, of love, of justice, of power, of beauty, of life in all its glory, of faith, of the divine – all of these convey the yearning of the soul’s original nature for what lies beyond everything. All the divine names, whether in Hebrew or any other language, provide merely a tiny, dim spark of the hidden light for which the soul yearns when it says “God.” …
…
Everything attributed to God other than the vastness of Infinity is simply an explanation by which to attain the source of faith. One must draw a distinction between the essence of faith and its explanatory aids, as well as between the various levels of explanation.
…
The crude complacency of imagining divinity as embodied in words and letters alone puts humanity to shame.
…
The infinite transcends every particular content of faith.”
Abraham Isaac Kook
1865-1935
“Pangs of Cleansing” in Orot ha-Qodesh
Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1961, 124-128
See: Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights and Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems, translated by Ben Zion Bokser (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1978), 261-267
The Essential Kabbalah
Daniel C. Matt
Harper-Collins 1996
pages 32-33
“ … … … A large part of the enormous Kabbalistic literature consists of commentaries on books of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, the Five Scrolls, the Psalms, the Song of Songs, the Book of Ruth, and Ecclesiastes. Many productive minds among the Kabbalists found this a congenial way of expressing their own ideas, while making them seem to flow from the words of the Bible. … … …
… … … Mystical speculation on the nature of the Torah goes hand in hand with the development of certain general principles. Some of the mystics’ ideas have a very peculiar history and are not common to all Kabbalists but characteristic only of certain trends. … … …
… … … Similarity of purpose and hence in the fundamental structure of the mystical ideas about the nature of the Holy Scriptures accounts also for the parallels between certain Kabbalistic statements about the Torah and those of Islamic mystics about the Koran or of Christian mystics about their Biblical canon. Only a study of the historical conditions under which specific Kabbalistic ideas developed can tell us whether there was any historical connection between the speculation of the Jewish Kabbalists and that of non-Jews on the nature of the Holy Scriptures. I believe that I can demonstrate such an influence in at least one case, in connection with the doctrine of the fourfold meaning of scripture.
… Most if not all Kabbalistic speculation and doctrine is concerned with the realm of the divine emanations or Sefiroth, in which God’s creative power unfolds. Over a long period of years, Kabbalists devised many ways of describing this realm. But throughout their history it remained the principal content of their vision, and always they spoke of it in the language of symbols, since it is not accessible to the direct perception of the human mind. Insofar as God reveals himself, He does so through the creative power of the Sefiroth. The God of whom religion speaks is always conceived under one or more of these aspects of His Being, which the Kabbalists identified with stages in the process of divine emanation. This Kabbalistic world of the Sefiroth encompasses what philosophers and theologians called the world of the divine attributes. But to the mystics it was divine life itself, insofar as it moves toward Creation. The hidden dynamic of this life fascinated the Kabbalists, who found it reflected in every realm of Creation. But this life as such is not separate from, or subordinate to, the Godhead, rather it is the revelation of the hidden root, concerning which, since it is never manifested, not even in symbols, nothing can be said, and which the Kabbalists called En-Sof, the infinite. But this hidden root and the divine emanations are one.
Here I need not go into the paradoxes and mysteries of Kabbalistic theology concerned with the Sefiroth and their nature. But one important point must be made. The process which the Kabbalists described as the emanation of divine energy and divine light was also characterized as the unfolding of the divine language.
This gives rise to a deep-seated parallelism between the two most important kinds of symbolism used by the Kabbalists to communicate their ideas. They speak of attributes and of spheres of light; but in the same context they speak also of divine names and the letters of which they are composed. From the very beginnings of Kabbalistic doctrine these two manners of speaking appear side by side.
The secret world of the godhead is a world of language, a world of divine names that unfold in accordance with a law of their own. The elements of the divine language appear as the letters of the Holy Scriptures. Letters and names are not only conventional means of communication. They are far more. Each one of them represents a concentration of energy and expresses a wealth of meaning which cannot be translated, or not fully at least, into human language.
There is, of course, an obvious discrepancy between the two symbolisms. When the Kabbalists speak of divine attributes and Sefiroth, they are describing the hidden world under ten aspects; when, on the other hand, they speak of divine names and letters, they necessarily operate with the twenty-two consonants of the Hebrew alphabet, in which the Torah is written, or as they would have said, in which its secret essence was made communicable. Several ways of resolving this glaring contradiction were put forward. One explanation was that since letters and Sefiroth are different configurations of the divine power, they cannot be reduced to a mechanical identity. What is significant for our present purposes is the analogy between Creation and Revelation, which results from the parallel between the Sefiroth and the divine language. The process of Creation, which proceeds from stage to stage and is reflected in extra-divine worlds and of course in nature as well, is not necessarily different from the process that finds its expression in divine words and in the documents of Revelation, in which the divine language is thought to have been reflected.
These considerations take us to the very heart of our subject. There is a necessary relationship between the mystical meaning of the Torah and the assumption concerning its divine essence. The Kabbalists do not start from the idea of communicable meaning. Of course the Torah means something to us. It communicates something in human language. But this, as we shall see, is only the most superficial of the various aspects under which it can be considered. In the following we shall see what these aspects are.
The Kabbalistic conceptions of the true nature of the Torah are based on three fundamental principles. They are not necessarily connected, although in our texts they often appear together, but it is not difficult to see how a relation can be established between them. These principles may be identified as:
1. The principle of God’s name.
2. The principle of the Torah as an organism.
3. The principle of the infinite meaning of the divine word.”
On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism
Gershom Scholem
1960
(Schoken books, 1974)
pages 32-37
The Torah is likened to a nut by some Kabbalists. Just as a nut has an outer shell and an inner kernel, so too does the Torah. Moses de Leon (1240 – 1305) used the acronym PaRDeS (a play on the word “Paradise”) to denote four levels of meaning in the Torah:
“…P stands for peshat, the literal meaning, R for remez, the allegorical meaning, D for derasha, the Talmudic and Aggadic interpretation, S for sod, the mystical meaning.”
On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism
Gershom Gerhard Scholem
Shocken books
New York 1969
page 57
“Alas for the man who regards the Torah as a book of mere tales and [everyday] matters. If this were so, we might even today write a Torah dealing in [everyday affairs] and still more excellent. In regard to earthly things, the kings and princes of the world possess more valuable materials. We could use them as a model for composing a Torah of this kind. But in reality the words of the Torah are higher words and higher mysteries…
…When fools see a man in a garment that seems beautiful to them, they do not look more closely. But more important than the garment is the body, and more important than the body is the soul. So likewise the Torah has a body, which consists of the commandments and ordinances of the Torah, which are called gufe torah, (“bodies of the Torah”). This body is cloaked in garments, which consist of worldly stories. Fools see only the garment, which is the narrative part of the Torah; they know no more and fail to see what is under the garment. Those who know more see not only the garment but also the body that is under the garment. But the truly wise, the servants of the Supreme King, those who stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, [penetrate right through to the] soul, which is the true foundation of the entire Torah…
…Wine cannot be kept save in a jar; so the Torah needs an outer garment. These are the stories and narratives, but it behoves us to penetrate beneath them.”
“Rabbi Simeon” in the Zohar – III 152a
(Moses de Leon being the actual author)
This is a synthesis of the translations found in:
The Zohar translated by Harry Sperling, Maurice Simon and Dr. Paul Levertoff
The Soncino Press 1949 – volume 5 page 211;
and: On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism
Gershom Gerhard Scholem
Shocken books – New York 1969
page 64
The first two paragraphs follow On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism with the exceptions enclosed in brackets which follow The Zohar(Soncino Press), and the third paragraph is taken entirely from The Zohar(Soncino Press) seeing as it is not found in On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism.
“Just as in the body of a man there are limbs and joints, just as some organs of the body are more, others less, vital, so it seems to be with the Torah. To one who does not understand their hidden meaning, certain sections and verses of the Torah seem fit to be thrown into the fire; but to one who has gained insight into their true meaning they seem essential components of the Torah. Consequently, to omit so much as one letter or point from the Torah is like removing some part of a perfect edifice. Thence it also follows that in respect of its divine character no essential distinction can be drawn between the section of Genesis 36, setting forth the generations of Esau [a seemingly superfluous passage], and the Ten Commandments, for it is all one whole and one edifice.”
Rabbi Azriel of Gerona
(1160 – 1238)
Quoted from within: On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism
Gershom Gerhard Scholem
Shocken books – New York, 1969
page 45
who cites it only as a quote within:
Perush Aggadoth
by Azriel of Gerona page 37.
Azriel of Gerona: in his Kabbalistic commentary on the Talmudic Aggadah.
In a separate footnote, Perush Aggadoth is cited as: ed. Tishby.
Next up is Johann Lorenz von Mosheim
Church historian, 1693 – 1755
Volume 1 of Ecclesiastical History
Part 1, Chapter 3: The Second Century
Concerning the Doctrine of the Christian Church in this Century.
Again, this is a church historian, writing in the 1700s, about the doctrine of the Christians from around 100-199:
“ … … … But, however the doctrines of the gospel may have been abused by the commentaries and interpretations of different sects, yet all were unanimous in regarding with veneration the holy scriptures, as the great rule of faith and manners; and hence that laudable and pious zeal of adapting them to general use.
We have mentioned already the translations that were made of them into different languages, and it will not be improper to say something here concerning those who employed their useful labours in explaining and interpreting them. Pantænus, the head of the Alexandrian school, was probably the first, who enriched the church with a version of the sacred writings, which has been lost among the ruins of time. The same fate attended the commentary of Clemens the Alexandrian, upon the canonical epistles; and also another celebrated work of the same author, in which he is said to have explained, in a compendious manner, almost all the sacred writings. The Harmony of the Evangelists, composed by Tatian, is yet extant. But The Exposition of the Revelations, by Justin Martyr, and of the four gospels by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, together with several illustrations of the Mosaic history of the creation, by other ancient writers, are all lost.
The loss of these ancient productions is the less to be regretted, as we know, with certainty, their vast inferiority to the expositions of the holy scriptures that appeared in succeeding times.
Among the persons already mentioned, there was none who deserved the name of an eminent and judicious interpreter of the sacred text. They all attributed a double sense to the words of scripture; the one obvious and literal, the other hidden and mysterious, which lay concealed, as it were, under the veil of the outward letter. The former they treated with the utmost neglect, and turned the whole force of their genius and application to unfold the latter; or, in other words, they were more studious to darken the holy scriptures with their idle fictions, than to investigate their true and natural sense. Some of them also forced the expressions of sacred writ out of their obvious meaning, in order to apply them to the support of their philosophical systems; of which dangerous and pernicious attempts, Clemens of Alexandria is said to have given the first example.
With respect to the expositors of the Old Testament in this century, we shall only make this general remark, that their excessive veneration for the Alexandrian version, commonly called the Septuagint, which they regarded almost as of divine authority, confined their views, fettered, as it were, their critical spirit, and hindered them from producing any thing excellent in the way of sacred criticism or interpretation.
… … …
If the primitive defenders of Christianity were not always happy in the choice of their arguments, yet they discovered more candour and probity [strong moral principles] than those of the following ages. The artifice of sophistry, and the habit of employing pious frauds in support of the truth, had not, as yet, infected the Christians. And this indeed, is all that can be said in their behalf; for they are worthy of little admiration on account of the accuracy or depth of their reasonings.
The most of them appear to have been destitute of penetration, learning, order, application, and force. They frequently make use of arguments void of all solidity, and much more proper to dazzle the fancy, than to enlighten and convince the mind.
One, laying aside the sacred writings, from whence all the weapons of religious controversy ought to be drawn, refers to the decisions of those bishops who ruled the apostolic churches.
Another thinks, that the antiquity of a doctrine is a mark of its truth, and pleads prescription against his adversaries, as if he was maintaining his property before a civil magistrate; than which method of disputing nothing can be more pernicious to the cause of truth.
A third imitates those wrong headed disputants among the Jews, who, infatuated with their cabalistic jargon, offered, as arguments, the imaginary powers of certain mystic words and chosen numbers. ”
Translated from the Original Latin, and Accompanied with Notes
and Chronological Tables.
By Archibald Maclaine, D. D.
James & John Harper, printers, 1821
pages 149-155
Archibald adds to this derision of “cabalistic jargon” in this 1821 edition, with this note:
“Several examples of this senseless method of reasoning, are to be found in different writers. See particularly Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom .iii.p. 660, 694.”
After admitting that most of the writings of this generation have been “lost” (burned by the orthodoxy), how can he claim that every last one of them venerated the (Greek) Septuagint alone, especially if he points out that some of these early Christians were “infatuated with their cabalistic jargon” (Hebrew)?
“… the gnostics did maintain various books which criticised many aspects of the official Church dogma, such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ, which the gnostics claimed were naïve misunderstandings.”
The Gnostic Gospels
Elaine Pagels
Penguin books, 1979, page 15
Although numerous, not all early Christians were gnostics.
At around the 100’s, we see strange Gospels, no longer included in our “orthodox” Bible. For example, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (mid to late 100s), here paraphrased/summarized by Bart D. Ehrman:
“The narrative opens with the young Jesus playing by the ford of a stream. Taking some clay, he models twelve sparrows. But, we are told, it was a Sabbath when he did this. A Jewish man passing by sees what Jesus has done and hurries off to tell his father, Joseph, that his son has profaned the Sabbath (by “making” things). Joseph comes and upbraids Jesus for violating the Law. Instead of apologizing or repenting for a sin, Jesus claps his hands and cries to the sparrows: “Be gone!” They immediately come to life and fly off chirping.
This opening story is indicative of much to come in the narrative. Jesus cannot be faulted for breaking the Sabbath (he has effectively destroyed all evidence of malfeasance!), and already as a young child he is seen as the author of life, not bound to human rules and regulations.
One might have expected that with such supernatural powers, Jesus would have been a useful and entertaining playmate for the other kids in town. As it turns out, however, the boy has a temper and is not to be crossed. When another child accidentally runs into him on the street, Jesus turns in anger and declares, “You shall go no further on your way.” The child falls down dead. Jesus later raises him from the dead, along with others that he cursed on one occasion or another.
And Jesus’ wrath is not reserved for other children. Joseph sends him to school to learn to read, but Jesus refuses to recite the Greek (?) alphabet. His teacher pleads with him to cooperate, until Jesus replies with a scornful challenge: “If you really are a teacher and know the letters well, tell me the power of Alpha and I’ll tell you the power of Beta.” More than a little perturbed, the teacher cuffs the boy on the head, the single largest mistake of an illustrious teaching career. Jesus withers him on the spot. Joseph is stricken with grief and gives an urgent order to his mother: “Do not let him go outside. Anyone who makes him angry dies.”
As time goes on, however, Jesus begins using his powers for good – saving his brother from a deadly snake bite, healing the sick, and proving remarkably handy around the house: When Joseph mis-cuts a board and is in danger of losing an important customer, Jesus performs a miracle to correct the mistake.
The account concludes with Jesus as a twelve-year-old in the Temple, surrounded by scribes and Pharisees who hear him teach and who bless Mary for the wonderful child she has brought into the world.”
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
Bart D. Ehrman
page 205
Our modern “orthodox” bible has no mention of Jesus forming clay birds and breathing life into them, but the Qur’an does, in Sura 3, verse 49, and Sura 5, verse 110.
It should be obvious, from this and many other points of logic, that the Qur’an was not written in isolation, and is very much an integral part of a cohesive composition – a single contiguous storyline – the unified group of Semitic scriptural works, written in harmony and for combined effect.
“Whether the original language of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was Greek or Syriac (Aramaic) is unknown. The few surviving Greek manuscripts provide no clues themselves because only one small scrap on papyrus predates the 13th century, whereas the earliest authorities, according to the editor and translator Montague Rhodes James, are a much abbreviated sixth-century Syriac version, and a Latin palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century, which has never been fully translated and can be found in Vienna.”
From the wicki on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas
citing:
Christian Apocrypha and Early Christian Literature
James, M.R.
Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924
p. 49
And a footnote in the source just quoted (Christian Apocrypha and Early Christian Literature) reads thus:
“(Paul) Peeters (author of Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis, 1910) is convinced that our Greek and Latin (apocryphal) texts are all derived from Syriac.”
So, if Syriac (Aramaic) was the original language of composition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, in the story, Jesus would be claiming to know the power of “Alaph” and “Beth”, which are equivalent to Hebrew “Aleph” and “Bet”.
Matthew 1:20 |
sr tdag rag qvxja qviua dt fdqsq rfxaq widfq yqfx dt ayhk wxt rryar vd vrid dfhw dfxaf qgvvs ty eax rqvadr wt fg xyiq ty rzyrcq |
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. |
1:21 |
vqdr rag wxq yvzxq cft acyj ty eax giayta djft fg iotatyg |
"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." |
1:22 |
trq rag sdt rtyv rgvfvd frf rqvqfx fg fxaq war gwaq |
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: |
1:23 |
rtq wvydvq vwog yvqdr wxq ygzxyg cft jfgyqad rfvvxef jfg qdtg |
"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." |
The above Semitic text on the left is the Syriac (Aramaic) version of Matthew. The Hebrew Matthew is lost, which is a real shame, but the Syriac at least helps demonstrate the silliness of thinking that Greek was the original language of composition of this gospel:
The Hebrew term cyj means “a cry for help.”
The Hebrew terms cj and caj mean “to help, save, rescue, deliver; safety”.
acj is a Hebrew term which translates to “salvation, deliverance, saving”.
Devoting yourself to helping all living creatures within reach.
What better combination of letters is there?
Consider the last part of Matthew 1:23 above:
1:23 |
jfgyqad rfvvxef jfg qdtg |
IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." |
This is a reference to the Hebrew prophesy in the Hebrew book of Isaiah, 7:14. This verse is “translating the meaning of which” from Hebrew into Aramaic, so:
jfgyqad (Hebrew) (actually the original Hebrew is jfgy qd)
into:
jfg qdtg (Aramaic)
So, in this case, Hebrew qd is written down as qad - transliterated from Hebrew to Aramaic, with an extra medial vowel a for the Aramaic. This is consistent with the Aramaic version of names ending in qd like Gabriel – in Aramaic, they end with qad instead of qd
OK, then, in the narrative, the meaning of this Hebrew term qd \ qad is translated, for the Aramaic-speaking audience into a more clear reference specifically to God (qdtq), conjugated with a g.
With this in mind, now consider two similar cases:
Matthew 27:46 |
ydqka vcj cjag zjq acyj wzvd xfq yqfx qad qad dfgq cwzvga |
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" |
Mark 15:34 |
ywvcj cjag zjq acyj wzvd xfq yqfx qad qad dfgq cwzvga rqavat qdta qdta dfgq cwzvga |
At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" |
Again, as in Matthew 1:23, when the Syriac version of the above passages translates the meaning of the words of Jesus, it is being translated from the Hebrew form qd \ qad into a more clear representation of the Aramaic term for God(qdtq), in this case qdta conjugated with the a at the end to signify “my God.”
Just as we saw in Matthew 1:23, what is being translated is a Hebrew term qd, and it is specifically tying it to the Aramaic term for God.
In the narrative, Jesus was using a Hebrew term for God.
This Hebrew term was translated into Aramaic, in the Aramaic New Testament, into the Aramaic term for God.
This contradicts the current view that the words of Jesus on the cross were purely Aramaic words, and that the meaning of these Aramaic words were translated into Greek by the alleged original Greek authors, for clarification amongst Greek audiences. A Hebrew-Aramaic clarification is here proposed as the true purpose of “translating the meaning thereof” instead.
The above indicates that it is entirely possible that words which sound Greek in the NT, were actually imported from Greek into a Hebrew or Aramaic original, rather than Hebrew and Aramaic terms being imported into a Greek original.
At the very least, what is clear is that, even if the original was Greek (which it wasn’t), but even if it was (but it wasn’t), yes but even if it was Greek authorship, the style of introducing a character by naming him/her with an attribute (at least imported from a Semitic language – this at least is uncontroversial) and that this attribute just so happens to match the nature of this individual later in life – indicates that this style is clearly in line with Semitic scripture!
“Greek” books, with Semitic genealogies, with characters with Semitic names that convey the essence of what those characters do in the story, just like in the Old Testament? Really?
It is a Semitic work, through and through.
So, even if Greek was the original language of the New Testament (nope), it is at least clear that the inspiration – the writing style – with the genealogies from the Old Testament – with much of the same tone of environmental catastrophism – with the same focus on the meaning of names (Semitic names specifically, not Greek names), and with the book of Revelation being essentially a big copy-paste from the OT; with all this, it is clear that the heart behind the New Testament is unambiguously of the same lineage as the Old Testament, through and through. In this context, it is less crucial to address/answer the Hebrew or Aramaic Primacy argument systematically – the argument is essentially transcended by the fact that it is a composition along Old Testament lines – no matter what!
If you are still convinced that Greek was the original language of composition of the New Testament, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, then, pray tell, how in the world can you explain the meaning of this verse:
Matthew 1:21 |
vqdr rag wxq yvzxq cft acyj ty eax giayta djft fg iotatyg |
"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." |
Iēsoûs, the Greek name for Jesus, means absolutely frack-all in Greek.
Nobody would argue otherwise.
It is just a transliteration of the Hebrew name acyj.
Iēsoûs does not mean ‘to save’ in Greek.
But it does in Hebrew.
So, how in the world can you square that circle?
How in the world can you say that this passage was originally Greek?
The New Testament is a continuation of the storyline of the Old Testament, drawing upon the same genealogies, and employing the same style of word-symbolism and letter-symbolism, just as the Qur’an did 600 years later:
“Ali said: ‘If I wished I could load seventy camels with the [interpretation] of the opening Surah of the Koran.’ What is the meaning of this, when the [outward – surface] interpretation [of this surah] is extremely short? Abu al-Darda’ said, ‘A man does not understand until he attributes [different] perspectives to the Koran.’ A certain scholar said, ‘For every verse there are sixty thousand understandings, and what remains to be understood is even more.’ Others have said, ‘The Koran contains seventy-seven thousand two hundred sciences, for every word [in it] is a science, and then that [number] can be quadrupled, since every word has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an end and a beginning.’
The Prophet’s repetition of [the phrase] ‘In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate’ twenty times was only for the purpose of pondering its [inner] meanings. Otherwise its explanation and [interpretation] are so obvious that someone like him would not need to repeat it. Ibn Mas’ud said: ‘He who desires the knowledge of the ancients and the moderns should ponder the Koran’, and that is not something that can be attained merely by its [outward – surface] interpretation.
The rejection of [outward – surface] meanings is the opinion of the Batiniyya, who, being one-eyed, looked only at one of the two worlds and did not recognize the correspondence between the two and did not understand its significance. Similarly, the rejection of the [inner] meanings is the position of the Hashwiyya. Whoever takes only the outward meaning is a Hashwi, and whoever takes only the inward meaning is a Batini, but whoever combines the two of them is perfect. For this reason the Prophet said: ‘The Koran has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an ending, and a beginning.’
One should not neglect the learning of outward [interpretation] first for there is no hope of reaching the inward aspect before having mastered the outward. One who claims to understand the secrets of the Koran without having mastered its outward [interpretation], is like a man who claims to have reached the main room of a house without having passed through the door.”
Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī
(‘Ghazali’, or ‘Algazel’ for short)
(1058-1111)
Quoted from within:
The Heritage of Sufism
pages 238, 239, 250, 251, 252
The Sufis are not the only Islamic tradition that sees meaning in the words and individual letters of the Qur'an, the Isma’ilis also held similar beliefs:
“[In an] early Isma’ili text: the second treatise of the Kitab al-kashf, [900s] which the Isma’ili tradition attributes to Ja’far b. Mansur al-Yaman, … … the Arabic alphabet, which consists of twenty-eight consonant signs, is divided into four groups of seven letters each, and thus into four heptads, from the combinations of which all words – and with them the very things they signify – come into being.”
Mediaeval Isma’ili History and Thought
Edited by Farhad Daftary
New York, N.Y. : Cambridge University Press, 1996
pages 79-80
The source is cited within this book as:
Ja’far b. Mansur al-Yaman, Kitab al-Kashf, ed. R Strothmann (London, etc., 1952)
pp 48 ff.;
ed. M. Ghalib (Beirut, 1984)
pp. 54 ff.
The earliest known Isma’ili cosmology describes individual letters in the process of creation:
“Then God breathed into it a spirit and directed at it a voice: “Be!” (kun), thus it came into being with God’s permission. All things were made by God through creating them (mubda ‘atan) from the letters kaf and nun [making the word kun. … Then through the waw and ya’, which became a name for what is above it, calling it therefore kuni. ”
Studies in Early Isma’ilism
S. M. (Samuel Miklos) Stern
Jerusalem Magnes Press, Hebrew University ; Leiden
E.J. Brill, 1983
page 18
“Certain esoteric schools of Islamic thought, such as the Isma’ili Shi’is, developed teachings about the letters of the alphabet to represent the human form and face. Entire portraits were created using only the names Allah, Muhammad, and ‘Ali.
Sufi-influenced groups – such as the Bektashi order in Ottoman lands, the Hurufi (“letter”) sect, and the Nuqtawi (“dot”) school – employed letter-symbolism and diagrams to convey their teachings; their elaborate metaphysical speculations on the cosmic significance of the letters were frequently combined with messianic activism. Quasi-magical treatments of the Arabic alphabet associated with the circle of the sixth Shi’i Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, were elaborated in connection with the occult sciences…”
“… In terms of discipline, the most important class of Sufi practices involving the word was the recitation of divine names as a kind of meditation [dikr, pronounced zikr by non-Arabs]. The movement towards interiorization of the Qur’an that was so decisive for the development of Sufism lent itself especially to the practice of meditation in which the [ninety nine] names of God are chanted over and over again, either in solitude or in company, aloud or silently.”
The Shambala Guide to Sufism
Carl W. Ernst
Shambala – Boston & London 1997
Pages 91, 92
Morley Safer
60 Minutes
1983 & 1999:
“This story is a mystery, a wonderful mystery in a way. One that it appears no one can solve.
What we are about to see is a rare condition called The Savant Syndrome. People with that condition have been called, more brutally: ‘Idiot Savants’. It’s a spectacular skill or talent that occurs in an autistic or retarded child – an island of brilliance, even genius, in the brain of someone who is otherwise extremely limited intellectually.
Tonight we’re going to meet three of these Savants, these geniuses: a pianist, a wizard, and a sculptor.
Alonso Clemens: sculptor. Using wax or clay, Alonso can do more than imitate nature. His sculpture has all the grace and movement and imagination of a truly great craftsman. Alonso Clemens is, plain and simple, an artist. He is also retarded. He cannot count much beyond 10, his speech is severely impaired.
His parents said he had the talent even as a baby. He now lives in this residence for the developmentally disabled in Boulder Colorado, where he’s been able to hold a part-time job cleaning out stables. That’s what he does with his mornings. Afternoons he spends sculpting. He can complete one of these horses in less than 20 minutes.
“Did anybody ever show you how to do this?”
“Nobody – I did it myself.”
“Nobody ever showed you how?”
“Never.”
Dr. Darold Treffert is a psychiatrist. We asked him to review the film of Alonso and the two other Savants we met, to help give us some inkling into the phenomenon.
“How do you know how to sculpt an animal, how do you know how to do that?”
“I remember.”
Dr. Treffert: “That’s a very characteristic response when you ask any of the Savants how do they do it, they just, they say they remember, or it’s their mind, they don’t know how, it just happens that way and they can’t understand how you can’t do it or I can’t, it just comes naturally to them.”
“How do you remember, do you know?”
“In the head.”
“You see a picture of it in your head?”
“Ya.”
Dr. Treffert: “My feeling is that yes he does indeed see a picture in his head. And it’s much more detailed and has much more retention than the rest of us do – we would have to keep going back to reinforce that in our mind, especially with respect to detail.”
“Did you see a picture of that horse in your head when you made that horse?”
“God, in heaven, God gave me talent.”
“God gave you the talent?”
“Yes.”
“How do you make this very tiny detail like the hoof and the eyes, how do you do that?”
“With my fingernail.”
Pam Driscoll runs the Driscoll Gallery in Denver. She handles Alonso’s work.
“Anatomically, it’s just fabulous, considering he’s never had an art class in his life. He does it all from memory, which is wonderful.”
Alonso has had his first show at the Driscoll, the bronze castings of his wax sculpture start at $750, and he’s quit his job at the stables.
“You did these two in about half an hour. Do you think you’re a special kind of person?”
“Ya.”
“How special? What’s special about Alonso?”
“Smart.”
“Smart. You’re very smart. Thank you for showing us.”
…
Suppose you want to know what day October 1st would fall on in the year 3000, or what date the 3rd Wednesday of June in the year 10,003 would be. Well, it’s easy, if you have a computer, and the computer has been programmed properly.
If you don’t, there’s always George Finn.
He can give you the day if you give him the date, or the date if you give him the day, going back to the year 1, and up to, it would seem, infinity. George has the most common of the Savants’ gifts: he’s a calendar calculator.
He’s 43 now, a patient at the Bronx Psychiatric Center’s rehabilitation center.
“What day of the week was August 13th, 1911?”
“Uh… Sunday.”
“What day of the week was May 20th, 1921?”
“Friday.”
“What day of the week is February 3rd in the year 2068?”
“That will fall, on a, Friday.”
“What date was the 3rd Saturday in October, in 1945?”
“It was on the 20th.”
“What day of the week was May 30th in the year 1?”
(within seconds) “May 30th in the year one was on a Wednesday.” (stated as a matter fact)
“This is remarkable George, you got every one of these right.”
What makes his talent so extraordinary, is that with his limited intellectual capabilities, he cannot multiply even the simplest numbers:
“I would like to try some math questions with you if you don’t mind. Some arithmetic. Could you do 3 times 2.”
“3 times 2 is uh… , is it uh… , 7, is it?”
“Or, howbout 5 times 7.”
“5 times 7 might be … … , 50 …?”
Besides calculating days and dates, George also remembers the weather for each day of his adult life. We checked him against the weather service, and of course, he was right.
“November 3rd 1958, what kind of day was it?”
“It was a cloudy day, it was on a Monday, it was cloudy that day … that’s right.
It was.
“And there were snow flurries that morning … very cold … little bit of rain drops too.”
“Windy?”
“Yes, windy.”
“Howbout May 22nd 1940.”
“That fell on a Wednesday.”
“What was the weather like?”
“I can’t tell, I was too [young], I was only an infant baby.”
“Do you know how you do it?”
“I don’t know. That’s fantastic that I can do that!”
“But how do you do it?”
“I dunno.”
“What happens inside your head?”
“I’ve got a good mind, that’s why I do it.”
“But, do you have a formula that you work out – do you know what I mean by a formula?”
“Yes, what’s it mean?”
“Do you multiply certain numbers by certain numbers…?”
“Yes, anything, yes, I know how to do it.”
Dr. Treffert: “Up until recently, people assumed, about George and others, that it was simple memory – that he memorized a perpetual calendar and just kept going out. You can demonstrate now by giving him questions that he couldn’t possibly have seen – that he must have some … … equation or formula in his head, of some sort – he can’t memorize that – so that … uh … but … it still boils down to the basic ability to concentrate or to remember because he hasn’t put his mind to finding out what 2 times 2 is.
“What day is June 6th, in the year … … 91,360?”
“Ninety-one thousand, three hundred and sixty … … June the 6th … … it would be on a … … it’ll be on a … … Friday.” (twelve seconds after the question was posed!!!)
(astonished) “Well, you’re remarkable and it has been a great pleasure to meet you.”
(all excited) “I’m glad to … what’s your name again?”
“Morley.”
“Morley, I am glad to meet you. I will remember this day as long as I live.”
60 minutes
October 23, 1983
In 1999, Morley Safer caught up with George Finn again:
“George, do you remember the last time we met?”
“Tuesday, April 5th.”
George Finn is 59 now and still at the top of his game. Truly, a man for all seasons.
“Do you remember what the weather was like?”
“Warm and sunny. A day I’ll never ever forget.”
In the past 16 years, George’s life has changed dramatically. He has a full-time job delivering packages for the New York League for Retarded Children. And, to his great delight, he no longer lives in an institution. He shares an apartment with two other men in similar circumstances. He could not be more proud of his ability to live an independent life.
“I’d like to ask you a few more questions – things that you might be able to still do. For example, what day was May 7th 1918?”
“Uh… that was on a Tuesday.”
“What years after that did May 7th fall on a Tuesday?”
“In 1929 … 1935 … 1940 … 1946, 1957, 63, 68, 74, 85 and … 91 and 96.”
“Perfect! Perfect!!!”
(pulling his hair out) “ … … Listen … … let me ask you something … … You know, most people forget things.”
“I know, I know.”
“But you don’t!”
“Never.”
For example, try a few of these questions on your neighbourhood presidential scholar:
“Do you remember George Washington’s birthday? His actual birthday.”
“When he was born, February 22nd, 1732.”
“What day was that?”
“Friday.”
“What day did he die?”
“December 14th 1799. Saturday.”
“Do you remember the date that President Lincoln was born?”
“He was born February 12th 19… 1809, on a Sunday. And he was assassinated by a bad guy, named John Booth, on Friday, April 14th 1865.”
(flabbergasted) “… … George … … do you understand how impressed people are by your talent.”
“Yeah, I know they are.”
Hollywood was impressed too. In 1988, the movie Rain-Man was made. Dustin Hoffman will never forget it – he won an academy award. And George, of course, forgets nothing.
“Do you remember what you were doing on January 14th 1989?”
“I was going to the movie theater in the Bronx, seeing the movie Rain-Man. I won’t forget that day. Never.”
“What did you think of that movie?”
“It was a nice movie, based (on) … made after me.”
“Do you think that Mr. Hoffman did a pretty good job of portraying you?”
“Yes. Rain… Yes. That was good.”
“Thank you George. It was great meeting you again.”
“Mr. Safer.”
“Maybe we should do this again in another 10 or 15 years.”
“I’ll remember.”
And so will we.
With his limitations, Nature, in many ways, made a prisoner of George Finn. At the same time, it gave him a talent, a power, to tear down the fences.”
In the earlier 1983 60 minutes, there was also the pianist Leslie Lemke: blind, with cerebral palsy, who didn’t start walking until he was ten and only started talking a few years before the 60 minutes episode; who, from the age of 6 has been able to reproduce an elaborate piano composition after hearing it just once, just as beautifully and technically proficient as the recording he hears. The full sequence deserves to be viewed with the soundtrack. It’s on youtube.
“Could he, as his mother says he did, just got up in the middle of the night one night and play Tchaikovsky’s piano concerto number 1? ” (after only a week with a piano, at age 6, without lessons)
Dr. Treffert: “Yes, that’s another startling thing about it, I think, that startles people, is that it does have a way of suddenly occurring.”
Dr. Treffert knows Leslie quite well, beyond our film. He’s been observing him for 3 years, and Leslie remains as much a mystery to him now as when they first met.
“How does he technically know – how does his fingers know that when strikes key X, that he will produce note A?”
Dr. Treffert: “I don’t know the answer to that question – that’s one of the mysteries of this thing – that’s – I dunno… The very interesting and intriguing thing about the Savant Syndrome, and probably the most intriguing thing of all is that: we don’t understand it. And, we ought to understand it. A bigger question than that I think is: will we ever understand it, because there may be an inherent inability of the brain to understand itself.”
“Is there any kind of relationship among the 3 savants we’re looking at in this broadcast – Alonso, George and Leslie?”
Dr. Treffert: “I think the characteristic and the uniform trait that all the savants seem to have is a remarkable memory. Alonso can look at an animal and, in his own head, not without looking back again, can recreate that. And, George, obviously, with his calendar calculating has, uh, a phenomenal memory as well. And Leslie – you can play him a song once and he will play it back.”
Woah … woah … woah … woah …
Wait a minute …
For Alonso Clemens the sculptor, and Leslie Lemcke the pianist, you can almost imagine overactive or dominant regions of the brain focusing, concentrating fiercely, then reproducing things from memory proficiently. You could even explain away a blind boy mastering the keyboard at age 6 by simply aligning himself with the keyboard, and tuning his position in his chair according to the notes he hears – that one isn’t so much a big deal.
But.
For George Finn, as Dr. Treffert had first pointed out, memory alone cannot possibly explain calculating dates 90 thousand years from now, or to be able to answer this question in good time:
“What years after that did May 7th fall on a Tuesday?”
“In 1929 … 1935 … 1940 … 1946, 1957, 63, 68, 74, 85 and … 91 and 96.”
That’s not memory.
Sure, memory is involved in all of this, but memory doesn’t explain this ability.
Just exceptional “concentration”?
Well, he can’t even concentrate on multiplying 2 by 3! Sure, concentration is involved, but that cannot fully explain this true mystery.
George Finn is not concentrating on each detail of calculation at the forefront of his consciousness. He is instead letting sub-conscious cellular groups perform the incredibly complex series of calculations. He is listening rather than thinking actively as a whole. When he is asked to multiply 2 times 3, he is waiting for the answer to come to him, rather than setting about to comprehend the question and do the work as a whole unified mind, step by step.
He does have exceptional memory – remembering the specifics of each day for his entire adult life. OK. That is memory – that is concentration. Now, imagine certain cells within George Finn – certain cells who have arranged all of these memories in order, and they figure out how the calendar works on their own, without all of the other cells in George Finn’s mind focusing on how the calendar works – these particular cells just obsess on the matter on their own, maybe even when he’s asleep. With all of these days that he remembers in his life – the cells inside his mind have a treasure trove of information to be able to piece together the workings of the calendar on their own.
If this is so – this demonstrates a remarkable uncanny intelligence among our own individual cells – an ability to think on their own.
Even if George Finn initially concentrated on the workings of the calendar, and a vast number of his cells had been initially obsessed with how the calendar works, at the forefront of his consciousness – all hands on deck – all cells at attention, to understand the calendar; even if it wasn’t just a small number of cells figuring it out all on their own; even so, if George cannot concentrate on 2 times 3, and is waiting for the answer to come to him, I don’t think George is working from a mathematical “formula” – it is the intelligence inherent in the cells within him that are doing the work, no matter how numerous they may be, and no matter how well integrated those cells might be with all the other cells in George Finn’s mind, and no matter how much he can control the calculations with the rest of the cells in his mind.
This form of thought, the thoughts of individual cells and their communication with other cells, this sub-conscious thought, can involve subject matter much much much more interesting than calculating dates.
You yourself may experience a mild form of this, if you have an intense job that repeats itself, week after week, for example, and you start to “automatically” foresee what the next week will look like, and, after years on this one job, you might “automatically” process literally thousands of inputs, from various aspects of your job, to forecast many weeks in advance – to determine minute parameters far down the road. Within you, imagine cells that understand the job more than others, and communicate amongst themselves, and, as you devote your attention over the years, more and more cells are aware of all the minute details, and can plan and contribute to the conversation within you regarding future business, even while you’re sleeping. Now, to explain George Finn’s ability – just take this scenario – of cells within you focused on a single topic, and imagine them obsessing over just that topic – just planning business down the road – and they just start blurting out projections involuntarily – so you start getting flashes – maybe warnings of logistical conflicts in your mind’s eye when you wake up from a nap – and you go “oh crap – I didn’t think of that!”. It may seem “automatic” – but the real “magic” is in the minds of cooperating cells within you!
Just as some cells within you know very well that your alarm is about to ring in a few minutes (this happens to me soooooooo many times), so too may some humans develop highly intricate abilities that seem to “automatically” come up with elaborate answers to questions, like George Finn’s date calculations.
Now, instead of calculating dates, or waking up at specific times, or getting a flash of “automatic” “intuition” about what your mundane boring job will need weeks to months down the road; these often sub-conscious abilities (specific cells contributing without you as a whole necessarily requesting or controlling this signalling) these abilities can be applied to much more interesting things, like meditating on the symbolic Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic letters, words and books!
The distinct nature of cellular constituents would be way more obvious in the mind of a tiny worm, 100 cells big, compared with us. With our 37 trillion cells, conversations involve so many more individual cells participating, and their contributions blend into and get smoothed out by the sheer number of participating individuals. But, in a tiny worm, the conversations would be clearly instigated by particular individuals, which the other cells will probably be personally familiar with, and can sense and get to know and remember individual cells and the way they usually contribute to the group (worm).
We, on the other hand, have so many more cells that it is not obvious that we are made of cells. We have so many cells that conversations between them can get convoluted or fragmented or lost in the mix, while also offering a wider range of possible ideas to ponder, and a wider range of individuals to focus on specific things, or to bring up and keep specific topics in mind.
The sheer number of cells within us, is one element that helps to give the sense of a uniform distinct mind of our own.
If we were only 100 cells big, it would probably be obvious to everybody when two cells are having a conversation. In other words, it would be harder to have sub-conscious thoughts between cells in a tiny worm, seeing as everybody is so near to everybody else, and can hear everybody else much clearer compared to our network of 37 trillion. In a worm 100 cells big, there would still be sub-conscious thought at play, but it would be mostly from within cells, rather than between cells.
The authors of Semitic scripture, having imbued meaning into the letters of their common alphabet, with these symbols referring to universal properties of the infinite eternal universe, enabled a way for deep contemplation. If you choose to study Semitic scripture deeply, learning all the terms, and maybe even memorizing sections, or entire books; the mind is full of vocabulary and intricate stories incorporating this vocabulary. With the words having been coined with more fundamental concepts within each letter, the interplay of meaning between words can lend itself to seemingly “automatic” realizations upon deep contemplation, which can then take on a life of its own as some of your cells may, on their own, notice new connections between letters, terms, and plot-points from the books. You may not initially realize the full meaning of certain words and verses upon first reading, but by your cells comparing them to other similar words and stories, in fine detail, the intended richness of meaning may become apparent to them, which, if these cells manage to relay their findings to a good majority of your other cells, would bring this to the forefront of your consciousness. When such seemingly automatic or spontaneous cellular realizations occur in great number and rapid succession, it can be overwhelming. This is the core of all of those quotes from the Semitic mystics.
There is nothing irrational about this Semitic-style letter-based mystical practice. It is simply not understood.
What is irrational is those who have not studied the original scripture with its original coded vocabulary in the original alphabet, who then attempt the same experience, by staring at Tarot cards, drawn at random, to get “inspired” by the cards representing the Hebrew letters. How can the Tarot possibly mean anything to a mind that has no Hebrew vocabulary from which to draw upon? If one utters a “magic spell”, for example, and doesn’t know the meaning of the letters, hasn’t studied any vocabulary, and hasn’t delved into scripture, it can only be a fruitless and unfulfilling experience. It would be like George Finn never having had access to a calendar or clock, and no one or thing ever having informed him of the date of any day – there’s no way he could ever have developed his ability. You have to know the meaning of the letters, or at least you have to have the vocabulary of scripture in your mind, so that you might have a chance at noticing connections between words that demonstrate the common meaning of letters in different words.
“Ecstatic” experience while contemplating combinations of letters, is understood here as the activity of your living constituents who deliberate upon and effect new thought and activity from their own realization of the interrelationships between the meanings of the words they are working with, and their constituent letters.
Your cells may discover parallels between words and phrases and themes within books on their own, which can cause them to get really excited about the matter; and just as with dreams, these individual cells or small groups of cells may have a hard time communicating their newfound realizations to your other 37 trillion cells.
When a whole bunch of cells get hypnotised like this and go down the letter-symbolism rabbit-hole in a concerted effort, it can distract you as a whole, especially if these cells are hooting and hollering loudly what they have discovered, and so you might have a sense of being lost in a thousand thoughts all at once, and this might be overwhelming, especially if many other cells also understand both what’s going on and the implications.
With the congruency of symbolism between words being apparent in the letters of the words that your cells process, discoveries of commonality across words based upon the meaning of the letters may take on a life of its own within you, exciting many interactive processes between your cells.
With other languages, this interactivity between cells is not this elaborate – it is just a processing of the sounds of letters and the meanings of words, instead of possibly instigating a deeper discussion between cells concerning the correlations between words, based on their constituent letters.
This is not the be-all end-all of mystical experiences, nor is this the only means that cells can come to realize things. Any cell, by many means, can come to communicate concerning deep matters within themselves and with other cells – without the need of letters or any other symbol. So, not knowing the meaning of the letters of the common Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic alephbet, and not knowing any terms in these languages, and not knowing any scripture at all, does not prohibit you from experiencing deep mystical contemplative moments in life!
“My son, it is not the intention that you come to halt with some finite or given form, even though it be of the highest order. Much rather is this the ‘path of the names’: the less understandable they are, the higher their order, until you arrive at the activity of a force which is no longer in your control, but rather your reason and your thought is in its control….
And he produced books for me made up of [combinations of] letters and names and mystic numbers [gematriot] of which nobody will ever be able to understand anything, for they are not composed in a manner meant to be understood. He said to me: ‘This is the [undefiled] path of the names.’ ”
Moshe Idel quotes this on page 235 of Kabbalah: New Perspectives.
He refers to it as a quote from a disciple of Abraham Abulafia’s.
Moshe Idel’s note:
“The author is an anonymous late thirteenth century Kabbalist, whose ecstatic experiences are described in his Sefer Sha’arey Zedek, from which I quote here Scholem’s translations in Major Trends, pp. 149-150.”
“Prepare to meet your God. Prepare to devote your heart. Purify your body and select a special place where no one in the world can hear your voice. Be totally alone. Sit in one spot in the room or the loft, and do not reveal your secret to anyone. If you can, do this by day, even for a little while, but the best way is to do it at night. As you prepare to speak with your Creator, to seek the revelation of his power, be careful to empty your mind of all mundane vanities. Wrap yourself in your tallit and put your tefillin on your head and your hand so that you will be filled with the awe of Shekhinah, who is with you at this moment. Wear clean garments, all white if you can. All this helps immensely in focusing your awe and love. If it is night, light many candles, until your eyes shine brightly.
Then take hold of ink, pen and tablet. Realize that you are about to serve your God in joy. Begin to combine letters, a few or many, permuting and revolving them rapidly until your mind warms up. Delight in how they move and in what you generate by revolving them. When you feel within that your mind is very, very warm from combining the letters, and that through the combinations you understand new things that you have not attained by human tradition nor discovered on your own through mental reflection, then you are ready to receive the abundant flow, and the abundance flows upon you, arousing you again and again.
Now turn your thoughts to visualizing the Name and its supernal angels, imagining them as if they were human beings standing or sitting around you, with you in the middle like a messenger about to be sent on a royal mission, waiting to hear about it from their lips, either from the king himself or from one of his ministers. Having imagined this vividly, prepare your mind and heart to understand the many things about to be conveyed to you by the letters being contemplated within you. Meditate on them as a whole and in all their detail, like one to whom a parable, a riddle, or a dream is being told, or like one perusing a book of wisdom, pondering a passage beyond his grasp. Interpret what you hear in an uplifting manner, approximating it as best you can. Based on what you understand of it, evaluate yourself and others. All this will happen after you fling the tablet from your hands and the pen from your fingers, or after they fall by themselves due to the intensity of your thoughts.”
Abraham Abulafia (1200’s)
Quoted from within: The Essential Kabbalah
Daniel C. Matt
HarperSanFrancisco 1994
page 103
The quote is cited as being from:
“Abraham Abulafia (thirteenth century),
Hayyei ha-Olam ha-Ba,
in Adolph Jellinek, Philosophie und Kabbala, Erstes Heft
(Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger, 1854)
44-45; cf.
Gershom Scholem
Ha-Qabbalah shel Sefer ha-Temunah ve-shel Avraham Abulafia
(Jerusalem: Akademon, 1969)
210-11
Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 136-137.
“There is an ancient midrash to the effect that anyone who spends the whole day reading the verse (Genesis 36:22) ‘And Lotan’s sister was Timna’, which strikes the reader of the Torah as particularly meaningless and irrelevant, will attain eternal beatitude. Hayim Joseph David Azulai [1724 - 1806] offers the following explanation of this aphorism:
“When a man utters words of the Torah, he never ceases to create spiritual potencies and new lights, which issue like medicines from ever new combinations of the elements and consonants. If therefore he spends the whole day reading just this one verse, he attains eternal beatitude, for at all times, indeed, in every moment, the composition [of the inner linguistic elements] changes in accordance with the condition and rank of this moment, and in accordance with the names that flare up within him at this moment.”
Here again the unlimited mystical plasticity of the divine word is taken as a principle, illustrated in the present case by what would seem to be about the most insignificant words of the Torah.”
On The Kabbalah And Its Symbolism
Gershom Gerhard Scholem
Shocken books – New York 1969
pages 75-76
“One night (in a vision) I saw myself conjoined with all the stars of the heaven, being united to each one with a great spiritual joy. After I had become joined with the stars I was given the letters (of the alphabet) in spiritual marriage. I told this vision of mine to one who would take it to a man versed in visionary lore, bidding him conceal my name. When he related my vision to the man, he said: ‘This is a measureless ocean and the one who has seen the vision shall have revealed to him knowledge of the highest things, of mysteries, of the properties of the stars, such as will be shared by no one in his time.’ ”
Ibn Arabi
(1165-1240)
Sufis of Andalusia
The Ruh al-quds and al-Durrat al-fakhirah of Ibn ‘Arabi
Translated by R.W.J. Austin
School of Oriental Studies, University of Durham
In a biographical sketch of Ibn ‘Ababi’s life, before the main translation
Beshara publications 2002
Page 35
One fascinating mystery of the Qur’an is that at the head of 29 suras (chapters) are individual letters. For example, at the head of sura 2, there is written: Alif, Lam, Mim. And that’s it. No explanation. Just seemingly random individual letters.
“Throughout the ages, scholars both Muslim and European, have pondered and wrestled with these mysterious letters, advancing a great number of theories, sometimes fanciful and far-fetched, to explain their origin and meaning.”
Quran And Bible
M.S. Seale 1978
page 30
In the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddiya order of the Sufis, there are a series of contemplative practices, one of which is the Contemplation of the Reality of the Qur'an:
“When an adept attains this stage, he receives the blessings, and perceives the light of the Eternal Speech of God and learns its arcane secret. He finds that every word of the Koran is expressive, significant and pregnant with meaning.
… At this stage, the meaning of the abbreviated letters [chapter-heading letters] of the Koran is revealed, but this cannot be expressed in words.”
Contemplative disciplines in Sufism
Dr. Mir Valiuddin
East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980
pages 130-131
The most widely used dhikr of all was the name Allah. Here is how it is carried out in the Chishtiyya order of the Sufis (established in 930):
“… the seeker retires into a secluded place and contemplates that the word Allah is written on his heart in golden letters and that he is reading it with zest and fervour, and that he is in the presence of Allah. He should be engrossed enough in these thoughts as to lose awareness of his own individual being.”
“At the beginning of this contemplation, the heart is filled with the resplendent light of the golden letters of Allah; then gradually the Alif (of Allah) disappears from sight and only a ring of light remains. This ring gradually assumes the form of a big circle, and in this circle many unseen worlds will be seen. The seeker should not pay attention to them and be lost in this spiritual exhibition.
All this will result in complete absorption and the state of fana or ‘total effacement’ will follow. The seeker attains the rank of persons who have attained total annihilation in God (fana-fi-Allah).”
Contemplative disciplines in Sufism
Dr. Mir Valiuddin
East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980
page 104
Mawlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī (or ‘Rumi’ for short), (1207-1273):
“Do not apply musk to the body, rub it on the heart. What is musk? The sacred name of him who is full of majesty.”
Contemplative disciplines in Sufism
Dr. Mir Valiuddin
East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980
page 64
In the Qadiriyya order of the Sufis (established in the 1100’s), it is written concerning the use of Allah as a dhikr:
“Allah, Allah is the name of the pure Essence of the Friend.
This great name is meant for attaining His proximity.
Allah, Allah, what good taste this name reveals,
Every letter of this word intoxicates life with the wine of love.”
Contemplative disciplines in Sufism
Dr. Mir Valiuddin
East-West publications (UK) Ltd. 1980
page 53
GEN 1:26 |
yaqfx qdtaf gjpt qrf wldfgy srfyvgy yaxry wrev taf ywjyk tcfaf ywwtft ywsd-tqxl ywsd-txfp txfp jd-tqxl |
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." |
Very few words in Genesis have the letter-combination rf. Several characters are introduced in like manner, by describing the origin and meaning of their name, even in the opening chapters of Genesis. This version of Adam’s creation might be written with the same intent, but without directly stipulating as much.
So, might Adam represent the principle of reproducing one’s pattern of coordinated activity – to repeat one’s efforts or to reproduce one’s self which produces a similar activity down the generations? In one’s own likeness?
Is this the reason why the name Adam also means “blood” – as in: one’s “bloodline”?
Not a bad first principle to start with in the symbolic genealogy. How does anything maintain itself? How the does the heart continue? How does the mind continue? From one moment to the next? What could be more crucial to address first (cosmologically)?
In Arabic, this letter combination rf, (ryf rqf raf) is found as “to continue, endure” and “perpetual, incessantly, persistently, always, forever” !!!
Noah is spelled gi
This combination of letters, this word (with different vowel markings) is also found to mean: “to cease, to rest, to die”.
The tale of Noah’s “flood” is written to represent alllll such calamities – all wipings away – all ceasings of life, past, present and future; inside and outside; society, city, family, human, plant, insect, single cell... The Death of any living thing! As a clue, the authors described how the fear of Noah and the dread of Noah will be on all creatures – even the fish of the sea. Dread and fear of Noah? On the fishes? From a guy that brings a flood – i.e. more water habitat? Fish do fear and dread Noah, indeed, each time they dash away from a shark (or the factory trawler). Fish fear death! Like every other living creature!
gi – From an established living entity g to disorganized non-living non-cooperative inactivity i. When a group of creatures (like cells in your body, or like bodies in a cooperative village, or like members in a league of nations), when a group ceases to coordinate and cooperate and act in a unified fashion, for whatever reason. To be, then, not to be.
This is the opposite of Eve (to become) (iyt) – which starts with i disorganised members, and ends up with t - fresh new life. Her “marriage” with Adam might represent something like: fresh new life arising through existing “bloodlines” – new living activity manifesting itself in context with existing traits.
The fact that Noah becomes “drunk with wine” is a perfect fit. Who quits more in life than a drunkard? The process of extinguishing life can extinguish itself.
The first 5 chapters of Genesis deal with the beginnings of new life, and the next 5 chapters deals with its opposite – the washings away – the ceasings of life, the quittings, the perishing of life. Fully deciphering even these first ten chapters would take more than a lifetime of effort, with rich nuance in each verse and section, and between sections.
“A scribe must provide a distinguishing mark for the section beginning ‘And it came to pass when the ark set forward’ both at its beginning and at its end, because it is a book on its own.”
Talmud: tractate Soferim 6:1
“The HAY (t) of Ha-Adonai (t-qrga) must be longer than any other HAY, because it is a word on its own.”
Talmud: tractate Soferim 9:6
“… Bezalel knew how to combine the letters by which the heavens and the earth were created.”
Talmud: tractate Berakoth 55a
^^^
Hebrew-English editions of the Babylonian Talmud – Minor Tractates
The Soncino press – London 1984
Under the editorship of Rev Dr. Abraham Cohen MA, PHD, DHL.
In the Talmud were various guidelines concerning the copying of manuscripts. There were guidelines for the preparation of the skin of the parchments, the preparation of the ink, the repairing and discarding of scrolls, the proper handling of scrolls, the use of foodstuffs when dealing with scrolls, the qualifications of the scribes, etc… But the guidelines which most concern us here are these:
The words written could not be duplicated from memory but had to be reproduced from an authentic copy that the scribe had before him.
The scribe had to say each word aloud as he wrote it.
Letters and words had to be spaced at a certain distance. No word could touch another and no letter could touch another.
Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of its writing or it was condemned.
If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was condemned.
If there were three mistakes found on any page, the whole manuscript was condemned.
Every word and every letter in a completed scroll was meticulously counted. If a letter or word was omitted, the manuscript was condemned.
This list is a reduced version of the one found all over the web.
I have often come across this list, but I could only verify a portion of it.
The Talmud is huge and I’ve searched what few tractates I thought might provide the direct quotes.
I could only find a few of the items in tractate Sefer ha-Torah, chapter 2, rules 1 & 2
chapter 3, rules 4 & 5
tractate Soferim chapter 3 rules 7, 8 & 9
chapter 5, rules 6, 10 & 11
and tractate Kiddushin 30a
The Talmud is a record of various rabbinic discussions which outline and explore Jewish civil and religious laws and also provides commentary on the Hebrew scriptures. It was compiled between the 100’s and 400’s.
'Kabbalah' was not the only term used in Jewish literature to denote a sort of esoteric understanding of scripture:
“The Talmud speaks of sitrei torah and razei torah (“secrets of the Torah”)
In the mystical literature from the close of the Talmudic period and afterward, the terms ba’alei ha-sod (“masters of the mystery”) and anshei emunah (“men of belief”) already occur.
In the period of the Provencal [French] and Spanish Kabbalists the Kabbalah is also called hokhmah penimit (“inner wisdom”), …… and the Kabbalists are often called maskilim (“the understanding ones”), with reference to Daniel 12:10, or doreshei reshumot (“those who interpret texts”), a Talmudic expression for allegorists.
From the beginning of the 1300’s the name Kabbalah almost completely superseded all other designations.”
Kabbalah
Gershom Gerhard Scholem
New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co
1974
page 6
“At first the word ‘Kabbalah’ did not especially denote a mystical or esoteric tradition. In the Talmud it is used [to refer to] the extra-Pentateuchal parts of the Bible [all books except for the first 5: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy], and in post-Talmudic literature the Oral Law is also called ‘Kabbalah’. ”
Kabbalah
Gershom Gerhard Scholem
New York Quadrangle / New York Times Book Co, 1974
Many scholars and theologians have pointed out that there is great word-play in Semitic scripture, with many patterns within and between verses. But, this, in fact, is not just word-play, it is also, and often primarily letter-play.
This sort of texture of Semitic Scripture is simply untranslatable.
“Seventy sages translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy. That day was as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made; for the Torah could not be fully translated.”
Talmud: tractate Sefer Torah, 1:8
“The most difficult and obscure of the holy books contain as many secrets as they do words, concealing many things even under each word.”
Saint Jerome
(342-419 AD)
author of the ‘Vulgate’
- a translation of the Bible from Hebrew & Greek into Latin
Here is the account of Adam’s creation, the second time around, in the second chapter:
Genesis 2:6 |
yqr ajdt fg-tqxl ytczt qv-sd-kga-tqrft |
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. |
2:7 |
yaalx atyt qdtaf qv-tqrf jkx fg-tqrft yaki wqkay gcfv iaaf yata tqrf dgkc iat |
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. |
So,
qrf was created from the
qrft which was watered by some
qr
Genesis 6:8 |
ygi flq ig wjaga atyt |
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. |
When vocalised in the original tongues, these passages come to life with acoustic properties unavailable in the translations.
dq qdt qdq qddt
“There is no God but Allah”
In the Sufi tradition, this cryptic line is widely used as a dhikr – the practice of contemplating certain names or phrases.
“… [there exists a] delicate aspect of cadence through which the Qur’an achieves euphony, [and] musical sounds which exist in every single verse, like a symphony.”
Qur’an Translation.
Hussein Abdul-Raof
Curzon Press: Richmond, Surrey 2001
page 39
citation from within Qur’an Translation:
Al Zarqani, M. Abdul-Athim (1988)
Manahil Al-Irfan fi Ulum Al-Qur’an
Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah
vol. 2, page 332
“There is, in the Qur’an, a subtly varied rhythmical flow of the discourse.”
Qur’an Translation.
page 39
citation from within Qur’an Translation:
Arberry, A. J. (1980)
The Koran Interpreted
London: Geroge Allen & Unwin
vol. 1, page 28
“In the translation of the Qur’an, we sacrifice the flow of sound to sense while in the Qur’an, sound and sense are interrelated.”
Qur’an Translation.
Page 58
“Unlike any other book, Asad claims *1*, the Qur’an’s meaning and its linguistic presentation form one unbreakable whole. The position of individual words in a sentence, the rhythm and sound of its phrases and their syntactic construction, the manner in which a metaphor flows almost imperceptibly into a pragmatic statement, the use of acoustic stress not merely in the service of rhetoric but as a means of alluding to unspoken but clearly implied ideas: all this makes the Qur’an, in the last resort, unique and untranslatable – a fact that has been pointed out by many earlier translators and by all Arab scholars.”
Qur’an Translation.
Page 60
*1*
Asad, M. (1980)
The Message of the Qur’an
Gibraltar: Dar Al-Andalus
page 5
“The task [of translating the Qur’an] is so frustrating and the Qur’an-bound linguistic and rhetorical intricate problems so unsurmountable that some translators like C. Turner (1997) *1* threatened to throw in the towel. T. B. Irving (1985) *2* talks of the Qur’anic conjunctions and connectives as one of the first problems the Qur’an translator encounters. He *3* is of the opinion that the Qur’an could be considered untranslatable, because each time one returns to the Arabic text, he finds new meanings and fresh ways of interpreting it. It is a living document.”
Qur’an Translation.
Page 39
*1*
citation from within Qur’an Translation:
Turner, C. (1997)
The Qur’an A New Interpretation
Surrey: Curzon Press
*2*
citation from within Qur’an Translation:
Irving, T. B. (1985)
The Qur’an: The First American Translation
Brattleboro: Amana Books
page 25
*3*
Same as *2* - page 11
“… the translation of the Qur’an has been traditionally rejected by Muslim scholars. *1* They only allow exegetical translation which is based on commentary and explication of the Qur’anic text. For them the translated version of the Qur’an should never be a replacement to the original Qur’an in Arabic when performing the daily prayers since “no translation is entirely acceptable or entirely ‘adequate’ ” *2* ; a translation of the Qur’an “is not the Qur’an and can never be” *3* ”
Qur’an Translation.
Page 40
*1*
citation from within Qur’an Translation:
Al-Qattan, Manna’ (1990)
Mabahith fi Ulum Al-Qur’an
Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah (cf.)
*2*
citation from within Qur’an Translation:
Toury, G. (1980)
In Search of a Theory of Translation
Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics
page 40
*3*
citation from within Qur’an Translation:
Turner, C. (1997)
The Qur’an: a New Interpretation
Surrey: Curzon Press
page 14
“The Qur’an, according to Asad, should be viewed as one integral whole; every structure has an intimate bearing on other structures, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its passages.”
Qur’an Translation.
Pages 62-63
“The Qur’an, in the view of Mir *1*, has a small vocabulary. According to one computation, the total number of Arabic roots used in the Qur’an is 1702. This may suggest that, from the point of view of language, the Qur’an is a simple enough book to follow, and its small vocabulary does facilitate one’s understanding of it. A serious student, however soon realizes that the language of this book is only deceptively simple, as is testified by the scores of volumes that exist on Qur’anic syntax and grammar alone, almost every Qur’anic verse presents one or more linguistic problems that claim attention and demand a solution. It is only on a close study of the Qur’anic language that one begins truly to appreciate its richness and complexity. What largely accounts for this richness and complexity is the most varied linguistic structures that, manipulating its small vocabulary, the Qur’an generates.”
Qur’an Translation.
Page 64
citation from within Qur’an Translation
M. Mir (1984)
Verbal Idioms of the Qur’an
The university of Michigan
page 1
“The language of the Qur’an is synthetic and imagistic – each word has a richness having to do with the special genius of the Arabic language.”
Qur’an Translation.
Page 65
It is held that even those who commit the Qur’an to memory still do not fully comprehend the variance in meaning, the nuance, of each word and verse.
The Bible and Qur'an form a brilliant and cohesive set of books that delve into the major "attributes" or "characteristics" of the infinite ever-changing individual living beings in the universe. One of the many methods employed to accomplish this tricky business, is when people move to a named region in the narratives, they enter different "conditions" described by the letters of the name of the region.
In Genesis 4:12, after Cain kills Abel, the Lord tells Cain that he will be a "vagrant" and a "wanderer". This Hebrew word for "wanderer" is spelled gyr. Then, a few verses later, in Genesis 4:16, Cain "went out from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod".
The land of Nod is spelled the same as the word for "wanderer" - gyr, and this is the only entry for this particular “territory” in all of scripture.
“Nod” is not an actual antediluvian territory, but a literary tool, a symbol, a philosophical principle within a tapestry of thousands more. (At the introduction of Semitic scripture, easy clues are dropped, to indicate the nature of the rest of the texts, in many different ways.)
Same goes for coming from a region. For example, something or someone coming from the “East” might mean it is from the past, or of longstanding, or well-aged.
There are many examples of this prescient fitting naming of people and places in scripture. Well, in fact, all the names are fitting – all the names have symbolic value fitting the characters and places – but not all are explicitly introduced with this connection written out, like these:
Genesis 4:25 |
yarj qrf jyr qv-qcvy yvdr wg yvzxq qv-cfy cv sa cv-da qdtaf uxj qix viv twd sa txey zag |
Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, [she said], "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him." |
Genesis 11:9 |
jd-sg zxq cft wwd sa-cf wdd atyt $kv sd-tqxl yfcf tkalf atyt jd-kga sd-tqxl |
Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. |
GEN 27:36 |
yaqfx tsa zxq cfy ajzw yajzwga ut kjfaf qv-wsxva dzi ytgt jvt dzi wxsva yaqfx tdq-qldv da wxst |
Then he said, "Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me these two times? He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing." And he said, "Have you not reserved a blessing for me?" |
1-Samuel 25:25 |
qd-gq a$af qrga qv-dwy qd-qac twdajd tut jd-gwd sa scfy sg-tyq gwd cfy ygwdt jfy yqga qfvs dq xqava qv-gjxa qrga qcx cdiv |
"Please do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless man, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name and folly is with him; but I your maidservant did not see the young men of my lord whom you sent. |
Woah, woah, woah….
Somebody christened their newborn child “Stupid”. Really?
Then, as this child matures and starts to act in the real world, he just so happens to, coincidentally, miraculously, act all stupid? Really??
As can be gathered from the above quotes concerning Isma’ili, Sufi and Kabbalistic mystic perspectives, and even very early Christian authors, there was a common obsession with the letters of scripture. This, at the very least, can be demonstrated (has here been demonstrated) to be fact.
Concerning the medieval flourishing of very similar Jewish and Islamic mystic practices (note the majority of the quotes above are from authors living between 900-1300), there was a lot more communication and interaction and co-existence between Jews and Muslims in this period than any other since (that I know of). I firmly believe that this period of time can set an example for modern day participation between Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Even though this is a clear concentration – a narrow time when this obsession with the letters was in vogue (with numerous authors writing lengthy works) it was still understood by a minority (crusading idiots didn’t understand all this business, for example).
The importance of this thought cannot be understated, and might be the most important take-away from this whole work, in terms of the implications for the modern world.
“Arab” = jxw
“Hebrew” = jwx
"Jewish Sufi manuscripts discovered during the late 1800’s in the Cairo Genizah (a hidden attic in an ancient Synagogue) have shed great light on the close relationship between Jewish and Muslim mystics of medieval times. From the 1000’s to the 1300’s, Jewish mystics translated and freely quoted from Sufi mystical writing, and some pursued the spiritual path under the guidance of Sufi masters. Similarly, during almost the same period, Jewish mystics in Persia and Turkey shared a devotional spirit with the Muslim mystics of their time. Many read Hebrew translations of the works of Rumi and Sa'adi.”
“The Jewish mystics in the Sufi tradition were sometimes called hasidim ("devotees", "pious ones"). Although this movement, and the Hasidei Ashkenaz movement which arose in Germany during the 1200’s, were not connected historically with what later became known as Hasidism – the ecstatic religious movement which began in the 1700’s in Poland – they foreshadowed many of its elements..."
"... Maimonide's son Abraham and grandson Obaydyah were mystics in the Sufi tradition."
The Holy Name
Miriam Bokser Caravella
(publisher: Radha Soami Satsang Beas)
Punjab 1989
pages 13, 14
The literature of the Sufis is of very much the same style as Kabbalistic literature:
“Instead of marginal comments alongside the Qur’an or full treatises in which substantial Qur’anic passages are cited in full and discussed, the commentaries of early Sufis have come down to us in the form of discussions instigated by the mention of a key Qur’anic word that can then suddenly jump to a new Qur’anic term and a new discussion.”
Early Islamic Mysticism
Michael A. Sells
Paulist press
New York/Mahwah 1996
page 75
To be sure, there was plenty of stupidity, violence, and barbarism during this time, and the mystics were in fact well-aware of this and wrote of the state of affairs.
Even though crusades raged, so too did a wide range of schools of thought flourish, which interpreted Semitic scripture in a very different way than people do today, with a particular obsession with word-play and letter-symbolism.
For example, Ibn Arabi, quoted above, wrote a book describing some of the benevolent, good-willed, strong-spirited folks that he met in his travels, precisely to prove the point that there were good people with strong and true devotional spirit in his time of strife. For example, this is part of his description of Abu Al-Hajjaj Yusuf Al-Shubardbuli:
“No matter how many people came to visit him he would put whatever food he had in front of them, leaving nothing aside for himself. One day, when a group of people were visiting him, he had me bring down the provisions basket for them. This I did, but found in it a mere handful of chick-peas. These he offered to them.
I myself have witnessed many evidences of his spiritual grace. He was one of those who could walk on water. At his house in the village he had a well, the water from which he used to perform his ritual ablutions [cleansing]. We noticed that there was, next to the well, a high fruit-bearing olive tree with a stout trunk. One of our companions asked him why he had planted the tree in such a place, where it restricted access to the well. Then he looked up at us, his back being bowed with age, and replied that, although he had been brought up in the house he had not noticed the tree till then; such was his preoccupation with his inner state.
… This Shaikh was like his own Shaikh, always answered when he made supplication and having the power to walk upon water. One night thieves broke into his house and took some things he had there. While all this was going on the Shaikh was on his prayer mat too absorbed in his devotions to notice their presence.....
… A great deal of what I remember of him cannot be recorded here, as is also the case with the others I have written about in this book. I have written of all of them only to show that our times are not completely lacking in Saintly men.”
Ibn Arabi
(1165-1240)
Sufis of Andalusia
The Ruh al-quds and al-Durrat al-fakhirah of Ibn ‘Arabi
Translated by R.W.J. Austin
School of Oriental Studies, University of Durham
Beshara publications 2002
Pages 81 - 83
Wait, what?
“Walking on water”?
Here the author gave a description of a man doing two things as being evidence of an ability to “walk on water” – being oblivious to the tumultuous surroundings – the conditions around him – the commotion and annoyances surrounding him, the echoes or waves of various events reverberating around him.
The passage in the New Testament where Jesus is walking on water was not on a calm sea, but on a tumultuous one. And, this is immediately after Jesus heard the news of the death of John the Baptist.
So then, did Ibn Arabi expect the reader to understand that “walking on water” is a metaphor? What other possibility is there? If he was expecting his readership – his audience – to understand this metaphor, then, maybe water was understood by a good number of people to be a metaphor at the time, and Jesus walking on water might have also been understood to be metaphor during the years Ibn Arabi was writing.
Semitic scripture is invaluable for our survival, informs us of fundamental physics, offers us rich cosmological perspectives, could help to transcend fundamentalist zealotry, and is also, if read in the original languages, quite an intriguing commentary on seemingly mundane daily human affairs, putting our simple actions in context with infinite detail of infinite living entities, which can enrichen our daily experience on this strange spinning rock.
Every simple mundane footstep of yours involves oodles of interactions within you and outside of you. A million eyes might be perceiving all such “insignificant” actions of yours, or your thoughts, intentions or “small” gestures which reveal your true intentions. Within you, there are creatures that are able to perceive your simple “unimportant” single footstep with immense detail and seriousness, in slow-mo.
We also have such a vantage point, in relation to the lumbering institutions on Earth – slow to change, slow to redesign, full of nuance that can be seen from day to day. Because we see a multi-human institution in slow-mo, we can perceive various ways to fine-tune the inner-workings of the activity of these large living organisms we are a part of on earth, and there might be much to learn by simply beholding one of its actions – one’s of its “mundane” “simple” “everyday” actions.
Maybe one day, probably not for a few generations, those who read Hebrew, Arabic, or Aramaic from birth, delving into their polished symbolic works in their intended original languages, will intuitively recognize the letter-play in the texts, and naturally revive the non-literal esoteric schools of thought as did thrive in the Medieval Warm Period and other periods.
Maybe then, we will come to truly appreciate the complexity, richness, and diversity of our ancestry, over the face of the earth, and of our roles on this planet, as stewards of surface life on this spinning rock whizzing around a fickle fire, with all sorts of other rocks flying all over the place, and other recurring ecological upheavals to deal with.