PDA

View Full Version : Mystic Islam



Gill Harley
13 April 2006, 08:29 AM
The last thread in this Islam section has got so political that I thought that I'd start a new one on mystic Islam. I think it would be useful to discuss the spirituality at the heart of Islam, and I would like to start by talking about Sufism and Rumi.

Rumi was a 13th century Persian mystic poet, and I think this is quite a good description of him:

"Rumi is able to verbalize the highly personal and often confusing world of personal/spiritual growth and mysticism in a very forward and direct fashion. He does not offend anyone, and he includes everyone. The world of Rumi is neither exclusively the world of a Sufi, nor the world of a Hindu, nor a Jew, nor a Christian; it is the highest state of a human being--a fully evolved human. A complete human is not bound by cultural limitations; he touches every one of us. Today Rumi's poems can be heard in churches, synagogues, Zen monasteries, as well as in the downtown New York art/performance/music scene." says Shahram Shiva, the author of the book Hush Don't Say Anything to God: Passionate Poems of Rumi':
http://www.rumi.net/rumi_by_shiva.htm

To start us off, here is a particular favourite of mine from Rumi.

The breeze at dawn has secrets to tell you.
Don’t go back to sleep.
You must ask for what you really want.
Don’t go back to sleep.
People are going back and forth across the doorsill
Where two worlds touch
The door is round and open.
Don’t go back to sleep.

Perhaps others have some Sufi mystical poems that they'd like to share? :)

satay
13 April 2006, 09:56 AM
namaste Gill,

I don't have any poems or any other articles to share on sufism but please share more...

I know a lot of people in the city I was born in used to go to 'dargaha' a sufi place for worship of what is known as 'peer choudari'. I have done this myself many times. In fact, muslims, sikhs, hindus of the city all go there on Thursdays...it's quite a site to see. It is said that whatever you ask for at this dargaha the peer will grant it to you...

My grandmother used to say that that place was a ruin a long time ago but you should the crowds on Thursdays at this place now!

There is definitely mysticism there.

Gill Harley
13 April 2006, 10:08 AM
namaste Gill,

I don't have any poems or any other articles to share on sufism but please share more...

I know a lot of people in the city I was born in used to go to 'dargaha' a sufi place for worship of what is known as 'peer choudari'. I have done this myself many times. In fact, muslims, sikhs, hindus of the city all go there on Thursdays...it's quite a site to see. It is said that whatever you ask for at this dargaha the peer will grant it to you...

My grandmother used to say that that place was a ruin a long time ago but you should the crowds on Thursdays at this place now!

There is definitely mysticism there.

That's interesting, Satay! And even more interesting that the big day is Thursday, Guru Brihaspati's (Jupiter's) day!

I don't know a lot about Sufism but I'd like to, which is partly why I started this thread. :)

Gill Harley
13 April 2006, 10:31 AM
Here is a definition of Sufism from Wikipaedia:

Sufism (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): تصوف, taṣawwuf) is a mystic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism) tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition) of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam). Practitioners of Sufism, known as Sufis, engage in the pursuit of a direct perception of spiritual truth or God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_concept_of_God), through mystic practices based on divine love. Sufism differs from other branches of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam) in its esoteric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esotericism) rather than exoteric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoteric) focus.

The term Sufism can be used to describe a diverse range of beliefs and practises. Tariqas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariqa) (Sufi orders) may be associated with Shi'a Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam), Sunni Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam), other currents of Islam, or a combination of multiple traditions.

Sufi thought emerged from the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) in the eighth century, but adherents are now found around the world. In particular, Indonesia, the most populous Islamic nation in the world, was introduced to Islam through Sufism, and Sufi practises and beliefs are evident in mainstream religious life across the country.

Sufism has produced a large body of poetry in Turkish, Urdu and Persian, which notably include the works of Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_al-Din_Muhammad_Rumi) and Amir Khusro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khusro), as well as numerous traditions of devotional dance, such as Sufi whirling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_whirling), and music, such as Qawwali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qawwali).

Here is a poem from Amir Khusro who, interestingly, is said to have invented the tablas:

I am a pagan and a worshipper of love: the creed (of Muslims) I do not need;
Every vein of mine has become taut like a wire,
the (Brahman’s) girdle I do not need.
Leave from my bedside, you ignorant physician!
The only cure for the patient of love is the sight of his beloved –
other than this no medicine does he need.
If there be no pilot in our boat, let there be none:
We have god in our midst: the sea we do not need.
The people of the world say that Khusrau worships idols.
So he does, so he does; the people he does not need,
the world he does not need.

sarabhanga
13 April 2006, 09:43 PM
Slay Thy Self
from The Secrets of the Self, by Iqbal (1873-1938)


Paradise is for the weak alone,
Strength is but a means of perdition.

It is wicked to seek greatness and glory,
Penury is sweeter than princedom.

Lightning does not threaten the corn-seed:
If the seed become a stack, it is unwise.

If you are sensible, you will be a mote of sand, not a Sahara,
So that you may enjoy the sunbeams.

O thou that delights in the slaughter of sheep,
Slay thy self, and thou wilt have honor!

Life is rendered unstable
By violence, oppression, revenge, and the exercise of power.

Though trodden underfoot, the grass grows up time after time
And washes the sleep of death from its eye again and again.

Forget thy self, if thou art wise!
If thou dost not forget thy self, thou art mad.

Close thine eyes, close thine ears, close thine lips,
That thy thought may reach the lofty sky!

The pasturage of the world is naught, naught:
O fool, do not torment thyself for a phantom!

ramkish42
14 April 2006, 12:49 PM
1. Islam is against all poetry, thus this poem is not be considered in Islam
2. Thy Self is different from Thyself. Space makes a lot of difference. I do understand what is the meaning perceived by Shri Sharabhanga on this
3. Paradise is for the weak alone, Strength is but a means of perdition is a controversial statement as perdition is abode of Satan in Christianity. English refers this abode alone as perdition - other term for this is Hell. If strong goes to hell and weak goes to heaven, this makes no sense unless it is clarified what is strength and weakness are about

So on and so forth. There is nothing Mystic about Islam

But poems of Omar Khayyam is more mystic for it has nothing to do with Islam

Jai shree Krishna

Singhi Kaya
14 April 2006, 03:16 PM
1. Islam is against all poetry, thus this poem is not be considered in Islam
2. Thy Self is different from Thyself. Space makes a lot of difference. I do understand what is the meaning perceived by Shri Sharabhanga on this
3. Paradise is for the weak alone, Strength is but a means of perdition is a controversial statement as perdition is abode of Satan in Christianity. English refers this abode alone as perdition - other term for this is Hell. If strong goes to hell and weak goes to heaven, this makes no sense unless it is clarified what is strength and weakness are about

So on and so forth. There is nothing Mystic about Islam

But poems of Omar Khayyam is more mystic for it has nothing to do with Islam

Jai shree Krishna

You're my pal.:D

sarabhanga
15 April 2006, 06:53 PM
The Koran ONLY exists in Arabic, so unless one understands Arabic one can NEVER properly understand the Koran! Jews and Muslims and most Indian Hindus understand this general fact of scriptural translation (i.e. that it is virtually impossible). The Christian world, however ~ including those of other faiths whose religious sensibilities have been dulled by long immersion in modern western (i.e. European Christian style) culture ~ is stubbornly ignorant of this ancient truth. And the Koran is surely poetic!

willie
15 April 2006, 09:03 PM
I have heard this sort of talk a lot. So in other words allah put forth a book that requires people to be able to read a certain language. So in some sense the means the arabic is the only language fit to be on earth, because allah chose it to be the language of the Quran.

Quite interesting considering that mohammad could neither read or write arabic. And the quran is a compilation of text that was spoken by mohammad. As he traveled around giving speeches scribes wrote down every word and later the quran was compiled from these texts. I wonder where these texts are now, it would sure be interesting to read some translations of them. Because this would give a good look at what mohammad was really like and what he talked about, not what somone said the talked about.

sarabhanga
16 April 2006, 12:06 AM
Just as Sanskrit is required to truly know the Vedas, and Hebrew is required to truly know the Torah, and both Aramaic and Greek are required to properly understand the Christian Gospel, and Latin is required to fully grasp Catholicism, an understanding of Arabic is likewise necessary for a proper understanding of the Koran. And this idea is certainly not new or peripheral!

Gill Harley
16 April 2006, 10:31 AM
I think what Sarabhanga is talking about is the understanding of sound, of language, and how different it is between East and West - and, nowadays, this "Westerner thinking" also includes Easterners brought up in the West, because they too are educated to think like Westerners.

That is why the proponents of the Vedas were called 'kavis', or poets. They understood that the sound that the language made was just as important as its meaning, if not more so. The first primordial sound in the universe is 'Aum' and everything, every sound, every vibration, every musical note, every word proceeds from that.

Most Westerners don't understand that. They think that language is a purely functional tool and music is just for gyrating in the disco! :)

Mystic Moslems would have also understood about the importance of sound and of language, particularly as, according to my research, Mohammed's forefathers were Vedic priests.

So much gets lost in translation, in any nation's sacred literature, not just because of the sound waves that get lost but also because the stories contained in them are allegorical and contain symbols. For example, the 18th century British translators of the Rig-veda have Indra releasing the 'cows' from the cave of the Panis (demons). But this is because 'go', which is cow in Sanskrit, also means 'ray of light'. Indra's obviously bringing light out of darkness, not cows out of darkness!

Another example of this are the problems that occur in trying to understand Judaism and Christianity. The old Jewish stories that make up the Old Testament were originally compiled and written down not in Hebrew, but in Greek. Centuries later, the Bible was translated into Latin, and that's where the trouble began.

Ever wondered where Lucifer, or the Devil, comes from?

Here are eight different translations from one verse in Isaiah:

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, who laid the nations low!

How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!

How great is your fall from heaven, O shining one, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the earth, low among the dead bodies!

How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! Thou art cut down to the ground, that didst prostrate the nations!

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.

So why Lucifer?

Here's the explanation: http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. ...Some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

It was Jerome in the 4th century AD who mistranslated the 'day star' of Venus into 'Lucifer' when translating the Bible from Greek into Latin.

So I think that's a pretty good example of how poetry and symbology get mascereted, going through the translation grinder, not to mention, misunderstood - and that's before you add on the two millennia of political intrigue that has seen the text changed so many times according to the whims of the day.

nekozuki
16 April 2006, 10:36 AM
I always said that Satan was a misinterpretation. Lucifer does mean "light-bearer" and refers to Venus. So, watch out if you tan in the sun you're going to hell because you're in the light. Satan is nothing more than a tool to get people to convert. If there was ever a being as powerful as Satan he would already be ruling this world, the whole Satan concept never made any sense. And since God is Supreme there can be no being to oppose him.

Gill Harley
16 April 2006, 10:55 AM
Actually, Satan is nothing to do with Lucifer. Some later Christians just decided to put the two concepts together.

The original Satan in the Old Testament was "a satan", which is a type of energetic being (like a deva or demon) who acts as an obstacle to test the will of the aspiring devotee.

The root stn means 'one who opposes, obstructs or acts as an adversary'. The Greek terms diabolos, later translated as 'the devil' actually orginally meant 'one who opposes, obstructs or acts as an adversary.'

"The satan" angel is first mentioned in the book of Numbers when God sends him to obstruct Balaam from going somewhere that God had instructed him not to go. Being a supernatural being, the satan angel could not be seen as he stood barring the way across the road by Balaam, but Balaam's ass saw him and refused to budge.

Then in the Book of Job, God uses the satan to test the patience of his devotee, Job, and in that role, he is called 'the Adversary'.

But the satan always works with God to obstruct, or as the adversary. He does not work against God. It was only latter-day Christians who decided to give Satan a bad press! :)

nekozuki
16 April 2006, 10:57 AM
Yep, I watched something about a year ago on the History channel that said Satan actually hates humans not God according to Jewish scripture.

Gill Harley
16 April 2006, 11:03 AM
Hmmm...according to my research, there's no sign of him actually hating humans. He's just believes that they should be tested, to ensure that they are good enough for God.

I think it's probably something like the concept of Yamaraja. Yamaraja, as the God of Death and Lord of the Underworld, is God's servant. He doesn't hate human beings but it is his role to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so that only those who are pure in heart and one with God get through his sorting process, and can transcend the wheel of karma. The rest have to undergo all sorts of trials, including being reincarnated again.

But again, these are not actual beings. They are poetic, allegorical and symbolic characters. They're metaphorical, metaphysical ideas, imho.

nekozuki
16 April 2006, 11:10 AM
Well, that might be what the scholars meant. I guess it's the way you interpret it. I've heard some people say that God was jealous of Lucifer's beauty and cast him down, which I seriously doubt. Sounds like they got it from some kind of literature or something.

Gill Harley
16 April 2006, 12:09 PM
Well, that might be what the scholars meant. I guess it's the way you interpret it. I've heard some people say that God was jealous of Lucifer's beauty and cast him down, which I seriously doubt. Sounds like they got it from some kind of literature or something.

Yes, but all that stuff's comparitively recent and is just a reflection of the people's minds who said it. If you go back to the original, there's no trace of that.

But it is just to make the point that a lot of what we've recently come to understand about Judaism and Christianity has overturned our way of thinking about the religion, and it stems from going back to read it in the original language Hebrew, which is not necessarily the language it was first written down in. As in India, the storytellers, kavis, bards and sages preferred to tell these stories, they were part of an oral tradition, rather than a written one.

But unfortunately, just as the British totally made a mess of the Rig-veda which didn't even start to get sorted out until India gained independence, so the Greeks and then then the Romans did a similar job on the Hebraic lore.

sarabhanga
17 April 2006, 02:16 AM
Namaste Singhi,

This thread was initiated by Gill for some less politically charged discussion of mysticism in Islam, and you have jumped directly from the previous bloodthirsty political discussion straight into this one with the point blank statement that mysticism in Islam does not exist. And now you ask that I refer to the other thread for your hysterical mistranslation of lines taken out of context ~ all of which I have already considered in that thread!

I will re-examine the lines you mentioned, but NOT in this thread on Mystical Islam (essentially Sufism, which is intimately entangled with the Jewish Kabbalah, and with Medieval Hinduism and the origins of the Sikhs and much of the Natha Sampradaya).

Not knowing Sanskrit has certainly led to some misguided Hindus eating cow-meat and even talking about (and sometimes actually doing) the killing of Muslims and/or Christians!

It is not Sharabhanga that has any personal prejudice in this matter ~ and I suggest that you look closer to home (quite seriously).

Singhi Kaya
17 April 2006, 01:57 PM
Agree 100%. If one is a devout muslim~understanding every letter of koran may be nesessary (for personal devotional reasons) and in such case, to know exact details one needs to learn arabic. Language cannot change the whole theme and meaning of a line, let alone a whole book. It can reveal more subtle understanding over the general one. Thus for a general understanding, this is hardly required. Plus many many people did learn/know arabic, and found out and wrote for us~it's logical to study them to get the most comprehensive idea of the religion.

Studing any translation of Gita doesn't sound like koran. But somehow people are not willing to agree to a perfectly rational point.

Btw, there have been well known saints in India who were illeterate. Essence of a religion (that to an alive and kicking one) is not a linguistic problem

willie
17 April 2006, 10:09 PM
I do not see translations as a problem, in this time if a translation is bad the word gets around very fast. And if there are spiritual ideas or revelations in the original work then they will get through.

The torah is from the oldest copy of the old testament, which is in the vatican and is written in greek, and if a person compaires the latest torah the old ones, even those hundred of years old it will be the same. And the oldest old testament is itself a copy of a previous work, this is written in the first or second page. In fact hebrew only became the official language of judiaism in the last 300 years or so.

There is a new version of the quran out by a professor at oxford, it took him 12 years to write. He is a native speaker of arabic and when he was young he memorized the whole quran. He wrote this on because a lot of the younger generation in europe cannot read arabic and need to read the quran. Of course , the mullahs would like the take this guy out.

What we have in this discussion it the "This is what it says but this is what it means" a pretty common problem in any religion or spiritual persuite.

sarabhanga
17 April 2006, 11:00 PM
Namaste Singhi,

Translation certainly can change the meaning of a line!

Without any translation, examine the meaning of this line:

Only cats dogs and mice with three legs are accepted.

Are only three-legged animals accepted (i.e. only cats, dogs, and mice, with three legs, are accepted), or is it only the mice that must be three-legged (i.e. only cats, dogs, and mice with three legs, are accepted)?

And are they (however numerous their legs) only accepted by someone who uses three legs (i.e. only cats, dogs, and mice, with three legs are accepted)?

Now, before anyone can translate this line into any other language, they must fully understand its context and the meaning intended by the one who spoke those words.

And is it only actual cats and dogs that are being considered, or could the terms “cat”, “dog”, “mouse”, “with 3 legs”, and even “accepted”, have various more esoteric meanings? ;)

Language (or Tongue) is only secondarily written and read ~ for primarily it has always been spoken and heard ~ and so illiteracy has no bearing on this matter.

It is essential, however, for proper communication, that both the speaker and the listener understand exactly the same language.

The essence of Dharma is surely linguistic!

AUM … :)

Arjuna
18 April 2006, 04:20 AM
The torah is from the oldest copy of the old testament, which is in the vatican and is written in greek, and if a person compaires the latest torah the old ones, even those hundred of years old it will be the same. And the oldest old testament is itself a copy of a previous work, this is written in the first or second page. In fact hebrew only became the official language of judiaism in the last 300 years or so.

This is wrong. Original text of TaNaKh (Torah, Prophets and Writings) was written in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic.
Greek text (Septuaginta) is a translation, which at places differ from Hebrew masoretic version current nowadays. Most scholars hold the Hebrew version to be more accurate, than Greek one (which is in any case not original one).

Hebrew and Aramaic were "official" languages of Judaism from the very beginning.

Arjuna
18 April 2006, 04:27 AM
The essence of Dharma is surely linguistic!
AUM … :)

Namaste, Sarabhanga!

Totally agree with U in this matter. Language is indeed essential for proper understanding of any dharma and of Dharma as well.

Gill Harley
18 April 2006, 07:19 AM
I love this Rumi poem!

Be Lost in the Call

Lord, said David, since you do not need us,
why did you create these two worlds?

Reality replied: O prisoner of time,
I was a secret treasure of kindness and generosity,
and I wished this treasure to be known,
so I created a mirror: its shining face, the heart;
its darkened back, the world;
The back would please you if you've never seen the face.
Has anyone ever produced a mirror out of mud and straw?
Yet clean away the mud and straw,
and a mirror might be revealed.

Until the juice ferments a while in the cask,
it isn't wine. If you wish your heart to be bright,
you must do a little work.

My King addressed the soul of my flesh:
You return just as you left.
Where are the traces of my gifts?
We know that alchemy transforms copper into gold.

This Sun doesn't want a crown or robe from God's grace.
He is a hat to a hundred bald men,
a covering for ten who were naked.

Jesus sat humbly on the back of an ass, my child!
How could a zephyr ride an ass?
Spirit, find your way, in seeking lowness like a stream.
Reason, tread the path of selflessness into eternity.

Remember God so much that you are forgotten.
Let the caller and the called disappear;
be lost in the Call.

Wonderful! :)

Gill Harley
18 April 2006, 07:36 AM
Here is a small potted biog of Rumi:

[from this website: http://www.armory.com/~thrace/sufi/life.html]


The name Mowlana Jalaluddin Rumi stands for Love and ecstatic flight into the infinite. Rumi is one of the great spiritual masters and poetical geniuses of mankind and was the founder of the Mawlawi Sufi order, a leading mystical brotherhood of Islam.

Rumi was born in Wakhsh (Tajikistan) under the administration of Balkh in 30 September 1207 to a family of learned theologians. Escaping the Mongol invasion and destruction, Rumi and his family traveled extensively in the Muslim lands, performed pilgrimage to Mecca and finally settled in Konya, Anatolia, then part of Seljuk Empire. When his father Bahaduddin Valad passed away, Rumi succeeded his father in 1231 as professor in religious sciences. Rumi 24 years old, was an already accomplished scholar in religious and positive sciences.

He was introduced into the mystical path by a wandering dervish, Shamsuddin of Tabriz. His love and his bereavement for the death of Shams found their expression in a surge of music, dance and lyric poems, `Divani Shamsi Tabrizi' (http://www.khamush.com/divan.htm). Rumi is the author of six volume didactic epic work, the `Mathnawi' (http://www.khamush.com/masnawi.html), called as the 'Koran in Persian' by Jami, and discourses, `Fihi ma Fihi' (http://www.khamush.com/discourses.html), written to introduce his disciples into metaphysics.

If there is any general idea underlying Rumi's poetry, it is the absolute love of God. His influence on thought, literature and all forms of aesthetic expression in the world of Islam cannot be overrated.

Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi died on December 17, 1273. Men of five faiths followed his bier. That night was named Sebul Arus (Night of Union). Ever since, the Mawlawi dervishes have kept that date as a festival.
The day I've died, my pall is moving on -
But do not think my heart is still on earth!
Don't weep and pity me: "Oh woe, how awful!"
You fall in devil's snare - woe, that is awful!
Don't cry "Woe, parted!" at my burial -
For me this is the time of joyful meeting!
Don't say "Farewell!" when I'm put in the grave -
A curtain is it for eternal bliss.
You saw "descending" - now look at the rising!
Is setting dangerous for sun and moon?
To you it looks like setting, but it's rising;
The coffin seems a jail, yet it means freedom.
Which seed fell in the earth that did not grow there?
Why do you doubt the fate of human seed?
What bucket came not filled from out the cistern?
Why should the Yusaf "Soul" then fear this well?
Close here your mouth and open it on that side.
So that your hymns may sound in Where- no-place!

Schimmel, Annemarie. Look! This Is Love: Poems of Rumi (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570622248/greecethracemi0e/).
Boston, Mass.: Shambhala Publications, 1991.

ramkish42
18 April 2006, 12:54 PM
Namaste Singhi,

Translation certainly can change the meaning of a line!

Without any translation, examine the meaning of this line:

Only cats dogs and mice with three legs are accepted.

Are only three-legged animals accepted (i.e. only cats, dogs, and mice, with three legs, are accepted), or is it only the mice that must be three-legged (i.e. only cats, dogs, and mice with three legs, are accepted)?

And are they (however numerous their legs) only accepted by someone who uses three legs (i.e. only cats, dogs, and mice, with three legs are accepted)?

Now, before anyone can translate this line into any other language, they must fully understand its context and the meaning intended by the one who spoke those words.

And is it only actual cats and dogs that are being considered, or could the terms “cat”, “dog”, “mouse”, “with 3 legs”, and even “accepted”, have various more esoteric meanings? ;)

Language (or Tongue) is only secondarily written and read ~ for primarily it has always been spoken and heard ~ and so illiteracy has no bearing on this matter.

It is essential, however, for proper communication, that both the speaker and the listener understand exactly the same language.

The essence of Dharma is surely linguistic!

AUM … :)

Troublesome example.

The fact as it goes, the phrase given in english itself is confounding. Say I would like to translate it in any indian language, I will be translating it in the way I understand, I agree. But the fact goes, My english knowledge, even if I have a Ph. D in english is not going to help me with this phrase. Even a native englishman will be confounded with such phrases.

To understand esoteric meaning for the phrase, the important is knowledge of the subject and not language. Assume this confounding phrase is part of a vital dharma of Hinduism - then, to understand esoteric meaning of this phrase depends on knowledge of Hinduism I have than knowledge of english language

Language of Dharma itself is ridiculous Idea. Dharma is common for all - being a tamil, dharma spelled in sanskrit binds me whether I know the language or not, for I know the subject. Such idea of language of dharma falls into a trap of perpetual call for higher knowledge. First, I should know my mother tongue well, then I know dharma then I have to know my religion in full, then the most important langugae of the religion, say sanskrit, some great guru would had given some text in another language then I have know that language - this goes on and on. Whereas, my aim is to reach god and seek eternity, what I am actually seeking to know is different language and their spellbound nature.

I understood this because of my background. Being a tamil vaishnavaite, most of vaishnavite books are in Sanskrit and Tamil, some books are in Manipravaalam. In due course, I came across the fact to understand my philosophy, knowledge of few other philosophy became important - just to know the strong tenant - in the phase, I found good books are written in Kanada, Telugu, Marathi, Bengali and few books are supposed to be written in Prakrutha. Some original works are written in Grantha Lipi - What am I looking for actually - I am not here to learn different languages, different writing scripts - I have only the shortest possible life - For me tomorrow is fully under the scope of possiblity and never been under 100% assurance. What am I supposed to do? Use translations - simple.

Further I also understood knowledge of language is not going to help much. Say tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikam evam akshini - what do you understand by this. Kapyasam - can mean monkey (kapeesh) and Ka AApa Yasam - who drinks water. Anybody who knows sanskrit will get confused with this phrase. This is were commentaries and translations come handy - first with my sanskrit knowledge I could not even understand what the phrase means - only translations of legendary commentaries helped me to understand the existence of different meanings.

If such the cases are how could one dispense with translations and go behind the original script

willie
19 April 2006, 09:51 PM
I and a lot of jews would like to see this version for the old testament produced. The old testament in the vatican is in greek and the one used as the reference for the torah, sure it is a copy of an earlier work because it says it is a copy on the first few pages.

Aramaic was widely used in the middle east , in the time of jesus and for some time before that but it was in no way the only language used by the jews. Jews spoke a variety of languages depending on where they lived. So any torah the used was probably a local version and no telling what they were like. but I will have to check into that.

willie
19 April 2006, 10:02 PM
This cats dogs and three legged mice thing belongs more to the religious problem set rather than the solution set.

It is the sort of cute word play that leaves the reader confused and not knowing what it going on. So is some sence the fruit of it is to for the writer to show their mental superiority, not exactly going along with not expecting the fruit of their labor.

Arjuna
20 April 2006, 12:55 AM
I and a lot of jews would like to see this version for the old testament produced. The old testament in the vatican is in greek and the one used as the reference for the torah, sure it is a copy of an earlier work because it says it is a copy on the first few pages.

Catholic Church holds Hebrew version to be more accurate, and their Vulgate Latin translation is based upon Hebrew.

Gill Harley
20 April 2006, 03:43 AM
I and a lot of jews would like to see this version for the old testament produced. The old testament in the vatican is in greek and the one used as the reference for the torah, sure it is a copy of an earlier work because it says it is a copy on the first few pages.

Aramaic was widely used in the middle east , in the time of jesus and for some time before that but it was in no way the only language used by the jews. Jews spoke a variety of languages depending on where they lived. So any torah the used was probably a local version and no telling what they were like. but I will have to check into that.

In the last few centuries of the BCs, most Jews of any standing spoke Greek, especially in Alexandria (where there more Jews lthan there were in Jerusalam and where many of the more recent books of the OT were thought to have been written).

I can recommend a number of good books on this subject, if you're interested.

satay
20 April 2006, 09:22 AM
Namaste, Sarabhanga!

Totally agree with U in this matter. Language is indeed essential for proper understanding of any dharma and of Dharma as well.

True language is essential but what of those who are born mentally challenged to speak or understand even normal words let alone understand shastra. What is their dharma and how should they understand it?

Gill Harley
20 April 2006, 10:00 AM
Namo Narayana

I think it would be really good if you could keep your feelings about Muslims and violence out of this thread. I had to start this new one because the last one I started got over-run with these sentiments.

ramkish42
20 April 2006, 11:53 AM
True language is essential but what of those who are born mentally challenged to speak or understand even normal words let alone understand shastra. What is their dharma and how should they understand it?

Excellent response Satayji.

In Shri vaishnav sect, we only recommend samanya dharma - nithya karma alone for such people. As reading and understanding complex texts can be by passed with Prapatti marga with mahaviswasa, the aim is create mahaviswasa for people who are mentally deranged. It is strange that during such transition itself, I had seen few such blessed-children having abstract ideas.

The point here is, such activities does not requires language of dharma but mother tongue

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
20 April 2006, 08:20 PM
Moderator Note:

Numerous users have requested that politically charged content with regards to Islam be kept out of this thread. The original post in this thread specifically requested that such content be kept out of this thread. The topic of this thread is about mystical Islam. If you would prefer to talk about something else, discuss in it in another thread. Numerous posts in this thread have been focused on bashing Islam which is considered bigotry especially considering that they are completely out of context. There is no bigotry allowed on these forums. If you want to discuss your opinions or constructive criticism about Islam on this website, that is fine as long as it is kept on-topic and appropriate. When I see posts that do not contain any constructive comments other than to attack or bash another faith, I will remove them and I have already removed several on this thread. These apply to Singh Kaya, Namo Narayana, and Ramkish42. All three of you have been asked to cease from such comments in this thread prior to this notice. Any further inappropriate content on this thread beyond this notice will result in a temporary suspension of your account.

Do you have any questions or comments about moderation policy? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact any of the other administrators on this website. Namaste. ~BYS~

willie
20 April 2006, 09:50 PM
Strange the the vatican website does not say anything about the herbrew version being more accurate.

willie
20 April 2006, 09:58 PM
Of course the there were jew in greece and in most of the countries of the middle east and there were a lot of different languages spoken by the different tribes of jews. So my thoughts are that a lot of jews that had lived most of the their lives in one area probably could not talk to jew for another area.

In the case of the torah , the process of writting one is very stringent and old torahs, being 300 or more years old, have been compaird to newly written ones and very miniscule differences are all that exist. And not printed torahs in hebrew and another language are being sold. The printed ones have sections by rabbis explaining the meaning and ideas of the passages.

One thing this shows is that old texts can be the same a modern texts , if the copying process is rigiorous enough.

Gill Harley
21 April 2006, 04:21 AM
That's interesting Willie, and given me a useful perspective.

I'm just about to plung into some uber-research on this matter, so I will bear your post in mind.:)

Arjuna
21 April 2006, 05:24 AM
Strange the the vatican website does not say anything about the herbrew version being more accurate.

Well i cannot be 100% sure about the current position of Vatican, but Vulgate (a official latin version used by catholics) is surely done from Hebrew. Hebrew is original text, which is also beyond doubt.

I can inquire from my very good friend, who is studying theology in catholic college. If i get info, i post it here.

Gill Harley
21 April 2006, 07:18 AM
Well i cannot be 100% sure about the current position of Vatican, but Vulgate (a official latin version used by catholics) is surely done from Hebrew. Hebrew is original text, which is also beyond doubt.

I can inquire from my very good friend, who is studying theology in catholic college. If i get info, i post it here.

Hi Arjuna

It's a well-known fact that Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin in the 4th century AD (the Vulgate version) took it from the Greek, and not the Hebrew. That's why scholars ever since have been trying to unravel the mess he created by doing that...although, to be fair to him, there probably wasn't a Hebrew written version at the time.

Arjuna
21 April 2006, 09:01 AM
There are many differences between Septuaginta (Greek version) and Vulgate. If Ur statement was right, it couldn't be so. As i know, for example, datings of life of Patriarchs in Vulgate are same as in masoretic Hebrew, and not as in Septuaginta.
Of course, TaNaKh was written from the very beginning — judaism has a cult of WRITTEN Torah, unline Hindu Vedas which were spoken only. Original text was Hebrew, and Greek translation was done by 70 scholars some time B. C. E.

Gill Harley
21 April 2006, 09:30 AM
There are many differences between Septuaginta (Greek version) and Vulgate. If Ur statement was right, it couldn't be so. As i know, for example, datings of life of Patriarchs in Vulgate are same as in masoretic Hebrew, and not as in Septuaginta.
Of course, TaNaKh was written from the very beginning — judaism has a cult of WRITTEN Torah, unline Hindu Vedas which were spoken only. Original text was Hebrew, and Greek translation was done by 70 scholars some time B. C. E.

But I would imagine that plenty of differences between the Vulgate and the Septuaginta would occur merely because of the different scribes censoring and changing whole chunks to match the political needs of the time, which we know they did. The Vatican itself has been responsible for some major censoring and rewriting.

Gill Harley
21 April 2006, 09:51 AM
Arjuna

You may find this helpful.

http://www.gentles.info/BibleHistory/Index_History.html

The language of much of the early Christian church was Greek, the Jews did not like this "highjacking" of their scripture, so Rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in 90 AD to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament. The Septuagint's subsequent history lies within the Christian church.

In the 3 C AD Origen attempted to clear up copyists' errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy. Other scholars also consulted the Hebrew text in order to make the Septuagint text more accurate. But it was the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew, that was the main basis for the

Old Latin,
Coptic, peasant communities of Egypt (late 3 C AD)
Ethiopic, written after conversion to Christianity 4-5 C AD. Earliest surviving version 13 C AD.
Armenian, result of nationalist upsurge and church split in 5 C AD. Noted for its beauty & accuracy.
Georgian, 5 C AD, some parts may be based on the Armenian version.
Slavonic, numerous translations over the centuries starting 1 C AD.
and part of the Arabic translations of the Old Testament. It has never ceased to be the standard version of the Old Testament in the Greek church, and from it Jerome began his translation of the Vulgate Old Testament.
Earliest surviving versions of the Septuagint (& therefore the NT) are Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both from the 4th C AD, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5 C AD. Fragments of Acts, Revelation, John and Luke from as early as 3 C AD also exist in various documents.

satay
21 April 2006, 01:32 PM
Don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has already...

send me a pm if someone wants to continue the discussion offline...

willie
21 April 2006, 09:28 PM
While it is an interesting discussion, back to mystic islam.

I was surprised the no one mentioned Khalil Gibrane and his text The Prophet. I have read it and if the gita ,vedas and some or the puranas were written like that book they would be the only holybooks around. People have been drawing a lot of inspiration from it for a long time. The only problem with it is the while the words flow for Khalil's pen like warm honey ,they leave the reader trying to measure up to them and few if any can.

sarabhanga
22 April 2006, 01:20 AM
Namaste Satay,

Your question is important in the context of this sub-thread considering language and the transmission of Dharma.

Full knowledge of Sanskrit is required for full understanding of Dharma ~ and such perfect comprehension is synonymous with complete immersion (dare I say merging) in Devanagari, the “City of God”. Absolute perfection is rarely manifest in humanity, and there is no reason to assume or insist that every Hindu must gain such an understanding in this life! Of course this would be ideal, and if it came to pass we would surely have heaven on earth! But in practice, each person can do no more than to follow their Dharma to the very best of their individual ability ~ and those around them can do no more than assist them in attaining that potential.

Acaryas (with perfect Sanskrit) are fit to argue the details of scriptural interpretation, but all others can do no better than just faithfully accepting and devotedly following the words of their own Acarya. Not all Gurus are Acaryas themselves, but any Guru who likewise adheres to his/her Parampara’s teaching (which should extend back via some established Acarya) is a true messenger and defender of his/her Sampradaya’s proven philosophy.

The traditional Hindu understanding is that the vast majority of souls will NOT attain Moksha or Liberation in this lifetime ~ and there is no blame or shame in this per se. It is only living up to one’s own best potential (or remaining faithful to one’s own sacred promise) that matters in the end ~ and that is the primary measure of Yama’s yardstick of Truth, and the main consideration of His final Judgement.

The authentic Word was anciently revealed, and it is the sacred duty of all religious communities to keep that Word true ~ in their hearts and their minds, in thought, word, and deed, and faithfully into the next generation. Both from parent to child and from Guru to shishya ~ indeed, the two relationships are identical. And the most effective means of teaching the fundaments of Dharma is by example ~ and that is why Satsanga is so highly recommended.

P.S. I have just heard that my computer will be back and running again within 48 hrs. :)

Gill Harley
22 April 2006, 04:03 AM
P.S. I have just heard that my computer will be back and running again within 48 hrs. :)

Hooray! We've missed you! :)

Gill Harley
22 April 2006, 04:11 AM
That's brilliant, Willie. I'd totally forgotten about Kahlil Gibran, although I wonder if he was a Moslem as such, even though he was from the Lebanon. Looking at his biography, http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/gibrn.htm he seems more of a sort of Renaissance Man to me!

Anyway, here's a wonderful poem of his, on love:


Then said Almitra, "Speak to us of Love."
And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them. And with a great voice he said:
When love beckons to you follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you. And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.
For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth. Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.
All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.
But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love. When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, I am in the heart of God."
And think not you can direct the course of love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
Love has no other desire but to fulfil itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.



That beautiful poem of Gibran's makes me realise that my one own experience of Love is sadly lacking, and more like Judy Collins:



I've looked at life from both sides now
And win or lose, but still somehow
It's Love's illusion I recall
I really don't know Love at all...


But I want to!

willie
22 April 2006, 10:05 PM
Before you judge yourself to harshly, better read what the prophet has to say about judging people.

Sadly when a person looks at the prophet's words and judges their life by then they come up short. But that is when you need courage and the ability to get up and try again.

satay
22 April 2006, 10:29 PM
Namaste Satay,


P.S. I have just heard that my computer will be back and running again within 48 hrs. :)

namaste,
Thank You for the nice post! Great to have you back. :)

Gill Harley
23 April 2006, 03:57 AM
Before you judge yourself to harshly, better read what the prophet has to say about judging people.

Sadly when a person looks at the prophet's words and judges their life by then they come up short. But that is when you need courage and the ability to get up and try again.

Thank you Willie. That message of yours was very timely.:)

sarabhanga
18 June 2006, 09:43 AM
A Persian Rosary is attached :)