Saying 55

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: deviadah

I think this topic got lost in the last hack, so I thought I'd bring it back because I find it worth discussing.

"Jesus said: He who does not hate his father and his mother cannot be a disciple to me. And (he who does not) hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross like me, will not be worthy of me."

Gospel of Thomas - saying 55

Gospel of Thomas - full text

Thoughts, comments, what does it mean?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

I tend to see it as you have to renounce the physical world in order to transcend to the spiritual. It uses the strongest examples of what this would mean, i.e. it is easy to renounce money but your parents?

I didn't realize it was also a paraphrase of a Manicaean text as well. I am reading a book on the history of Iran and Manichean thought springs up all over the place. Unfortunately texts on Mani are few and far between.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: 20AD

One possible interpretation is that your family are people like everyone else. There is nothing wrong with hating them from time to time. If you love them a lot then naturally you will have a corresponding lot of hatred if they piss you off.
Admitting to be human. But not necessarily acting on your hatred. Because the nature of all emotion is fleeting.

Sincerely.
AD.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: deviadah

Both your points are valid. Apart from the physical world what more can father, mother, brother and sister be seen as an allegory for? The Sun and the Moon, Osiris and Isis, are easy (i.e. father/mother), but when it comes to brother and sister it is not so common...

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

Considering the audience was predominantly Jewish I find it hard to incorporate Egyptian symbology into it.

It also shows how difficult the path put forward will be - all or nothing, no posers allowed.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: deviadah

I was just throwing Osiris and Isis out as an example of what I meant. Although Egypt should not be cast out of the equation just cause it ain't Jewish. From what I understand the Jews have quite a lot in common with Ancient Egypt and so do we since most esoteric knowledge comes from there. After all, as far as we know, it is the most ancient civilisation (together with Ancient China). And Atlantis if you want to go that far (out there).

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: palimpsest

While I thought an interesting interpretation of that text was that we need to hate our parents just a little so that we grow up better than them instead of exactly like them (like, leave tradition behind to understand the meaning of that tradition or the soul of it; leave religion for Spirituality,) but then I read somewhere that "hate" might just be a mistranslation of "not prefer." 'Cause the followers aren't supposed to prefer anything to God, or love Him less than anyone, not even something so (usually) close and precious as family.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: deviadah

[QUOTE=palimpsest;295707]...leave tradition behind to understand the meaning of that tradition or the soul of it... followers aren't supposed to prefer anything to God...[/QUOTE]

Interesting points.

I go with the former although the latter is probably more correct. But since all religious texts (with very few exceptions) are allegories these are always subject to intepretation so there is no right or wrong.



Although if God is, as I perceive it, oneself (or ones inner true self) than I agree more with the latter theory!

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

I was just throwing Osiris and Isis out as an example of what I meant. Although Egypt should not be cast out of the equation just cause it ain't Jewish. From what I understand the Jews have quite a lot in common with Ancient Egypt and so do we since most esoteric knowledge comes from there. After all, as far as we know, it is the most ancient civilisation (together with Ancient China).

Pehaps they would know of Osiris and Isis distantly but using them as a key reference point seems like a mixed metaphor that doesn't make sense. Reminds me of a friend who called 'Jerusalem the Mecca for Jews'. And there I should stop before we get too far sidetracked...

I go with the former although the latter is probably more correct. But since all religious texts (with very few exceptions) are allegories these are always subject to intepretation so there is no right or wrong.

But it is through tradition that we get the initial interpretation without the danger of eisegesis. Such texts use allegory and symbolism that would make sense to the audience of the time. For example on other threads making the forbidden fruit an apple was a later interpretation, one which would not make sense to Moses for example.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: deviadah

[QUOTE=Dunhill;295724]But it is through tradition that we get the initial interpretation without the danger of eisegesis.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Dunhill... learned a new word there!

:p

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: BeautifulEvil

Jesus said: He who does not hate his father and his mother cannot be a disciple to me.

He who does not hate the god and the goddess cannot be a disciple to me.

And (he who does not) hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross like me, will not be worthy of me.

He who does not hate all creations and take up his cross (in self sacrifice, to become not), will not become like me.

I don't know really, just something I pulled out of nowhere. This saying does remind me of The Crowned and Conquering Child. Also, There is a blatant contradiction of this saying with saying 101.

There are most likely many translation errors, and this makes interpretation all the more difficult.

I would also like to add this sayings from the Gospel of Thomas:

"16. Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war."

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: 20AD

Yeah, it's shame the translation may be off.

These passages remind of the saying:
"If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch."
- Lin Chi

It may be completely unrelated. And I may have a prejudice in finding the gospel sayings to be a bit more sinister

All the best.
AD.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

I don't know really, just something I pulled out of nowhere. This saying does remind me of The Crowned and Conquering Child. Also, There is a blatant contradiction of this saying with saying 101.

Not familiar with the Crowned & Conquering child.

Not necessarily a contradiciton. Rather the first part of 101 is a copy of 55. The second part however does seem to contradict it, unfortuantely there are apparently some words missing in the latter half.

I am also wondering if there is some symbolic meaning missing. Gnostics were agianst the flesh and usually against sex in general as well as JC not being born of woman. Perhaps the second set of mother and father could refer to spiritual parents?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: LadyHydralisk

Seems like a mistranslation. In Buddhism and especially tantra it is reccomended you do not have any attachments to your family, particularily when taking up residence with a guru, but this is a little....erm...hateful.

Jesus wasn't about hate, even I know THAT.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: deviadah

[QUOTE=LadyHydralisk;296857]In Buddhism and especially tantra it is reccomended you do not have any attachments to your family, particularily when taking up residence with a guru... [/QUOTE]

I don't think this is such a bad point!

Should we create a thread for each saying?

That should keep us busy for a few months!

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: BeautifulEvil

Jesus wasn't about hate, even I know THAT.

NO!

But I am!

(This is just my sense of humor...)

:agree:

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Moon Knight

[QUOTE=LadyHydralisk;296857]Seems like a mistranslation. In Buddhism and especially tantra it is reccomended you do not have any attachments to your family, particularily when taking up residence with a guru, but this is a little....erm...hateful.

Jesus wasn't about hate, even I know THAT.[/QUOTE]

I have read that the word translated frequently as hate (I believe from Hebrew, but could have been ancient Greek) actually can be also (and perhaps more correctly) translated as avoid.

As LadyHydralisk notes, Jesus/God was not known for hatred. Even the prodigal son was forgiven, and I suspect that means that, hypothetically, should Satan turn from his ways (assuming he is not an agent of God who is meant to tempt), then he would likewise be forgiven.

Yet the Bible says to hate Satan. And again, the Gospel of Thomas cautions hatred of one's parents.

I would interpret it as an appeal for objectivity and indifference; a detachment from our parents while retaining love for them just as we should presumably have for everyone once one has progressed far enough. This would be as opposed to pandering to them because they are our parents and not putting reality first.

It might also be said to refer to our spiritual parents. The means in the mystical path is very often the end itself. To suddenly become lustful for enlightenment when in reach of it is to fall away from the middle road. The desired prize can itself become a distraction on the path and that is the type of subtle danger that paradoxes often lead us to understand. Love and obey God, yet remain detached and fully aware.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: BeautifulEvil

Moon Knight, you make a few very good points in your post.

I really wonder how accurate these translations are. I highly doubt we should take them literally.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Moon Knight

[QUOTE=BeautifulEvil;297340]Moon Knight, you make a few very good points in your post.

I really wonder how accurate these translations are. I highly doubt we should take them literally.[/QUOTE]

Even if the translations were as accurate as translations can reasonably be (no matter how object and skilled a translator is, there are unique nuances to different languages) I would not be tempted to take them solely literally. IF there is literal truth in it, then it is only one of several layers.

Any kind of wisdom has to come with practical experience, which can even include meditation and deep contemplation of sacred texts. Godly inspiration will help one identify clues in the texts and in life that order things a bit more and shift the puzzle pieces a little closer to where they ought to be to see the whole picture.

There was a time I would argue with others about which was the better bible translation on the whole, and go out of my way to track down a suitable translation suiting my standards. Admitedly there are some translations that are significantly better than others, but even some of the worst efforts I am sure can be sorted out with some heavenly inspiration.

Just some perspective to suggest that you stay aware of the limitations of whatever you have translated (bible and otherwise) but not sweat it terribly.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: BeautifulEvil

Moon Knight, elegantly put!

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Diana

[QUOTE=Dunhill;294949]I tend to see it as you have to renounce the physical world in order to transcend to the spiritual. It uses the strongest examples of what this would mean, i.e. it is easy to renounce money but your parents?

[/QUOTE]

I interpret it this way as well.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Diana

[QUOTE=LadyHydralisk;296857]Seems like a mistranslation. In Buddhism and especially tantra it is reccomended you do not have any attachments to your family, particularily when taking up residence with a guru, but this is a little....erm...hateful.

Jesus wasn't about hate, even I know THAT.[/QUOTE]

I think it relates more to rejection than hate, rejection of the material world/physical plane that is.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

Even if the translations were as accurate as translations can reasonably be (no matter how object and skilled a translator is, there are unique nuances to different languages) I would not be tempted to take them solely literally. IF there is literal truth in it, then it is only one of several layers.

Another gold star word for the day - hermeneutics : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible). The literary translations do seem to be fairly consistent although there are some words/lines missing unfortunately. However the literal meaning of the words can be misleading without understanding the context, the vernacular and any type of symbolism that may be used. For instance - You can't have too much water in a nuclear reactor. Does this mean a lot of water is good or bad? Or if I said 'That really chews monkey', the words are pretty straight forward but do you have any idea what it means? This would be the main issue I have with Biblical literalists.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: steven1980

[QUOTE=Dunhill;294949]I tend to see it as you have to renounce the physical world in order to transcend to the spiritual. It uses the strongest examples of what this would mean, i.e. it is easy to renounce money but your parents?

I didn't realize it was also a paraphrase of a Manicaean text as well. I am reading a book on the history of Iran and Manichean thought springs up all over the place. Unfortunately texts on Mani are few and far between.[/QUOTE]

I havent heard this before. Would you happen to have a source for that?

Thanks!

Steven

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dunhill

Mantle of the Prophet by Roy Mottasedeh (spelling probably off on the last name). Basically it about setting the stage for the Iranian Revolution with a basis of Iranian cultural and religious history along with a mini-biography of a character based on interviews with an actual person. It also touches on Sufi influences on the concept of erfan - ultimate reality - which Khomeni seemed to be very interested in. It is not the most 'academic' of books on the subject but does give enough background to give idead for further research. I am finding it very interesting as I knew almost nothing on the subject.