Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: Mystic Islam

  1. #11
    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.
    Last edited by Bhakti Yoga Seeker; 20 April 2006 at 07:51 PM.
    Gill

  2. #12
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    37
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    42
    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.

  3. #13
    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!
    Gill

  4. #14
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    37
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    42
    Yep, I watched something about a year ago on the History channel that said Satan actually hates humans not God according to Jewish scripture.

  5. #15
    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.
    Gill

  6. #16
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    37
    Posts
    158
    Rep Power
    42
    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.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by nekozuki
    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.
    Gill

  8. #18
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Exclamation

    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).

  9. #19
    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
    Last edited by Bhakti Yoga Seeker; 20 April 2006 at 07:59 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •