Question For Bible Scholars
EricM
Charlie Dunn wrote in message <3459e916...@news.flash.net>...
>Hi!
>
>I've seen some very informed quotes from the Bible in this newsgroup.
>
>So maybe someone can tell me where the following appears in the
Bible:
>
> "The meek shall inherit the earth."
>
>Is that either the exact quote or close to it?
>
>In any case, American Heritage Dictionary defines meek as follows:
>
>meek (m¶k) adj. meek·er, meek·est. 1. Showing patience and humility;
>gentle. 2. Easily imposed on; submissive. [Middle English meke, of
>Scandinavian origin Old Norse mj¿kr, soft.] --meek“ly adv.
>
>Quite honestly, using that definition, I question whether the meek
>WILL inherit the earth. But, assuming that the idea is true, I then
>have to wonder whether flames are appropriate from those who place
>high priority on the Biblical Word.
"Meek" is the reverse of "Self Assertive", This assertiveness is the
percieved separated self that is a symptom of the disorientation that
Allen speaks of trying to assert itself. So "Meek" suggests correct
orientation.
Another very obscure meaning of "Meek" exists: "Drawing energy from
substance and nothing else". Substance is what stands under, or what
understands: the underlying cause of everything. In this substance
there is a considerable ammount of power. Considerably more than that
required to flame a few single celled organisms that happen to able to
operate a computer!!!
Not that I am aligning myself with any particular belief system.
>
>Flames don't seem very meek to me.
Ha! Flames burn!!
Just entering into the spirit of it Charlie.
Eric
Charlie Dunn
>"Meek" is the reverse of "Self Assertive", This assertiveness is the
>percieved separated self that is a symptom of the disorientation that
>Allen speaks of trying to assert itself. So "Meek" suggests correct
>orientation.
Sorry. You lost me on this one, Eric.
You say "Meek" suggests correct orientation?
In the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition is:
as·ser·tive (…-sūr“t¹v) adj. Inclined to bold or confident assertion;
aggressively self-assured. --as·ser“tive·ly adv. --as·ser“tive·ness n.
So if "Meek" is the REVERSE of "Self Assertive", and "Meek"
suggests correct orientation...........
Well, I'm afraid that I'm lost in the meaning.
Enlightenment, please!
Your Texas Buddy,
Charlie
EricM
Eric, trying to define "Meek" said:
>>"Meek" is the reverse of "Self Assertive", This assertiveness is the
>>percieved separated self that is a symptom of the disorientation
that
>>Allen speaks of trying to assert itself. So "Meek" suggests correct
>>orientation.
And Charlie responded thusly:
>Sorry. You lost me on this one, Eric.
>
>You say "Meek" suggests correct orientation?
>
>In the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition is:
>
>as·ser·tive (…-sūr“t¹v) adj. Inclined to bold or confident assertion;
>aggressively self-assured. --as·ser“tive·ly adv. --as·ser“tive·ness
n.
>
>So if "Meek" is the REVERSE of "Self Assertive", and "Meek"
>suggests correct orientation...........
>
>Well, I'm afraid that I'm lost in the meaning.
>
>Enlightenment, please!
And then Eric added in explanation:
You see, we limeys see you yanks as pretty egotistical beings! :-)
And many traditions see egotism as something which is going to lead
one away from spiritual development, a view which I share. This ego
comes about as a result of disorientation. The "Self Assertion"
referred to is egotistic self assertion: asserting that which is not
orientated towards localised consciousness. This is something about
Knowledgism that I cannot get to grips with. It appears to encourage
egotistic self assertion and call it "spiritual" development. Now I
see this as diametrically opposed to spiritual development!
The Biblical use of "meek" is to describe those who have turned away
from egotism and joined up with a collective consciousness... God, for
want of a better description.
Your limey friend,
Eric
EricM
Charlie Dunn wrote in message <345dbd01...@news.flash.net>...
>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:56:48 -0000, in alt.spiritual.enhancement you
>wrote:
>
>> This is something about Knowledgism that I cannot get to grips
with.
>>It appears to encourage egotistic self assertion and call it
"spiritual"
>>development. Now I see this as diametrically opposed to spiritual
>>development!
>
>Hi, Eric!
>
>I'm writing this on what is Sunday morning here, while I have a
>little time to study my e-mail and the newsgroup.
>
>In the process of truly reading messages that I had only skimmed
>through before, I noticed your above statement for the first time.
>
>Please indulge me. I'm curious as to what about Knowledgism reminds
>you of the "egotistic self-assertive" trait. Honest! I'm not aware
>of anything in Knowledgism which should do that.
>
>I expect the operative word in your statement is "appears" when you
>say that it APPEARS to encourage egotistic self assertion and call it
>"spiritual" development.
...
I have a tendency to use the word "egotistic" to mean identified with
the ego, which is not exactly the dictionary definition. The ego being
defined here as the psychological aspect of material exisitence.
I said APPEARS very deliberately because I'm expressing an opinion
based on some things contained in the web site and nothing else. I
could be misinterpreting them and be totally wrong about it.
Kindest wishes
Eric
Tomansky
Charlie Dunn wrote:
I've seen some very informed quotes from the Bible in this newsgroup. So
maybe someone can tell me where the following appears in the Bible: "The
meek shall inherit the earth." Is that either the exact quote or close to
it?
Actually, I have seen it in French as "debonair." That word's translation
seems to depend on the cultural, philosophical, and personal beliefs of
the translator. Tone, too. It is, of course, never translated as
"demagogue" or "asinine." <g>
David Levi
EricM
Hi David,
>Charlie Dunn wrote:
>
>I've seen some very informed quotes from the Bible in this newsgroup.
So
>maybe someone can tell me where the following appears in the Bible:
"The
>meek shall inherit the earth." Is that either the exact quote or
close to
>it?
>And David Levi commented:
>Actually, I have seen it in French as "debonair." That word's
translation
>seems to depend on the cultural, philosophical, and personal beliefs
of
>the translator. Tone, too. It is, of course, never translated as
>"demagogue" or "asinine." <g>
I think "Debonair" sounds very good! As you probably know it literally
means " de bonne aire", of good air. "Air" in this context is usually
taken to mean disposition.
But "AEther", the stuff of which the ancients said the heavenly bodies
are composed (and everything else), is described in the dictionary as
"the upper, purer air".
It might seem a bit contrived, but I don't think it's unreasonable to
make a connection between the two uses of "air" here. Then we could
say that "meek" means "of the EAther" (I'm using your terminology
again Allen!), the inference being that the meek are unadulterated...
or pure in heart maybe, not identified with material existence.
Eric
Charlie Dunn
Eric wrote:
.>> This is something about Knowledgism that I cannot get to grips
with. It appears to encourage egotistic self assertion and call it
"spiritual" development. Now I see this as diametrically opposed to
spiritual development!
And Charlie replied:
> I'm writing this on what is Sunday morning here, while I have a
>little time to study my e-mail and the newsgroup.
> In the process of truly reading messages that I had only skimmed
>through before, I noticed your above statement for the first time.
> Please indulge me. I'm curious as to what about Knowledgism
>reminds you of the "egotistic self-assertive" trait. Honest! I'm
>not aware of anything in Knowledgism which should do that.
[...]
Then Eric answered back:
> I was wondering when you where going to ask me this.
> I think the first thing I need to clear up is my perhaps
>unfortunate habit of using the word "egotistic" in a different
>sense to that found in the dictionary. It might have been better if
>I had said egoistic, I've come across confusing definitions of the
>ego, egoism and egotism in some writings presenting "systems" for
>spiritual development.
Charlie's comment to Eric:
Well, here we go with what one would normally think of as
psychological terms. Right off the bat, in my opinion, we have
"fogged up" the issue.
You continue:
> To put the point more clearly, sticking with dictionary
>definitions (hopefully) the ego I'm referring to might be described
>as the psychological aspect of the physical existence.
OK... psychological. My opinion is that we're in trouble already
when you begin using terms from that field! If ever there was a
genuinely un-spiritual study, that generally is it!
> When I say egotistic I mean identified with the ego, ....
OK... Let's look at definitions. This is from the American
Heritage Dictionary:
EGO 1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and
other selves. 2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche
that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and
behavior, and is most in touch with external reality. 3.a. An
exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. b. Appropriate
pride in oneself; self-esteem. [New Latin, from Latin, I. See
eg below.]
Well, it seems to me that all but #3a above would be rather
positive in a spiritual context.
Is this discussion based only on #3a?
>...so this self assertiveness is identification with the ego; and
>the physical existence, I don't see that the two can be separated.
>Spiritual work involves breaking identification with the ego. I
>know this to be true and nobody will convince me otherwise!
Good grief! I'm in trouble already! If no one can convince you
otherwise, this is probably a fruitless dialogue. :-)
The fact is, though, that I think there may not be such a thing as
"ego". You are a Spiritual Being. Are you an Ego? Of course not!
However, if you are a human on this planet at this time, you
probably wear a bunch of IDENTITIES which were pre-programmed by
outside factors.
> It is in the ego/physical existence that all the pre-programming
>exists and it is identification with it that keeps us
>disorientated.
I agree that pre-programming exists, and that it keeps us
disoriented. In our studies, there have been some amazing
breakthroughs on the subject of pre-programming. I'll quote a
little from a recent writing by Alan Walter:
"There is a very deadly trap that all of us have been in at one
time or another. That trap is the identity we wear.
"What makes it so deadly is the fact that it is created by
outside forces -- by our parents, our schools, our friends, the
culture we live in. All these combined create and mold a Being
into a conforming, controllable identity. They program you how
to think, how to be, how to operate, how to act, what is
acceptable or not, what level of income is OK, what it is OK to
live in, what is OK for you to own, what you should be willing to
be responsible for, etc., etc.
"That conforming, controllable identity is in charge of the
Being.
"A standard action such as going to school, demands that you are
quiet, docile, under control, accepting of authority,
unthinking, unoriginating, unoriginal, etc., etc. The end
product of this behavior modification means you have BEEN
SOLIDLY CREATED AS A _________________(normal, average,
compliant, a con-trouble making, etc.) IDENTITY.
"Add to this programming your ethnic and family behavior
modification, and you are suitably dumbed down to a programmed,
controlled, unaware of the spiritualness of YOU identity. You
have become a programmed, false, operating identity."
The above is only a tiny fraction of what has been discovered on
this subject. And you'll just have to trust me on this statement:
The discoveries are aiding individuals to FREE THEMSELVES as
Spiritual Beings -- not to become further entrapped!
You continued:
> The ego/physical existence is merely for the particular modality
>of consciousness (soul) to express itself through, not to be lost
>in!
No disagreement there.
> Now some of this programming is particular to one person, but a
>great deal of it is "MASS PROGRAMMING" inflicted by the culture
>that we find ourselves in. Sometimes we can get through all the
>stuff we have as our own but we are left with mass programming and
>we see this as OK because it's part of our culture.
Wow! So far it's like you've been reading about and agreeing with
our discoveries!
> So we can fool ourselves that we have become enlightened beings
>when we are still along way from it because we have failed to see
>the mass programming. That is perhaps a bit of an aside but I felt
>it should be written.
I agree with you about that.
> Right, having laid the ground let's try and give the perception I
>have of knowledgism, and I AM prepared to accept that I have the
>wrong angle on it and my use of the word "appears" was very
>deliberate.
Well, Eric, I'm glad you leave the door open to that degree.
Because my point is that our ethnic and cultural differences have
caused a GIGANTIC misconception!
> Looking at the web site, one of the first things that hit me was
>that whole aim of spiritual development as proposed by knowledgism
>SEEMS to be orientated to the acquisition of material wealth and
>physical comforts. There is a hierarchy given which SEEMS to equate
>spiritual development with a corporate hierarchy, from out of work
>derelicts and have nots through company executives to leaders.
Oh my! There IS a cultural difference. Do you feel that, if an
individual achieves true Mastery in his field and earns
appropriately, he is losing his Spirituality?
Knowledgism places great importance on helping the individual
achieve his TRUE wants. And, since we know that each individual is
a Spiritual Being, we know that, if the individual is in good
shape, he will want Spiritual Development and Freedom. We do not
see having or not having material wealth as the first priority.
However, it is my opinion that it is a fixed idea that one can't
achieve Spiritual Freedom while having material success. It is a
negative cultural and/or religious program, and it is insidious
indeed.
Why shouldn't an individual who is truly successful in life also be
highly enlightened in a Spiritual sense? And, if someone is
successful, should he deny himself the rewards for fear of losing
his Spirituality?
The fact is that I don't think an individual will achieve permanent
success in all respects WITHOUT having his "Spiritual Act
Together". You know how the Law Of Karma works! There is a
Universal Justice System -- and you are the Judge and Jury.
> As we become better orientated we gain a certain amount of power
>as a consequence. But it is also to possible to engage in
>practices for the acquisition of the same power for its own sake in
>order to get what the ego wants.
Karma will ultimately eat you alive if you do that!
> We remain identified with the ego/physical existence but we reach
>into other hidden realms. This is what I perceive Knowledgism to be
>doing. I emphasize this is my perception and I may be wrong.
Thank you for realizing that. Our web page has a gigantic amount
of material. If you are ever inclined, put your "Spiritual
Perception Glasses" on and read everything. I believe you'll find
that there was an error in perception, although chances are that
our particular practice probably isn't for you. That's OK, because
we don't believe that we have the only way! :-)
> The social/corporate standing of an individual might correspond
>to their degree of spiritual enhancement but it is very very far
>from certain.
It depends on the individual's level of Mastery and his ability to
be totally ethical and honest.
> I have been presented with opportunities of making large amounts
>of money but the doing of it has prevented me doing other things
>that I found to be essential to me, but which were not going to get
>me rich.
Well, you are a nice man even though you AREN'T rich! :-)
> Putting my energies into climbing to the top of a corporate
>ladder would have been a terrible thing for me to do. We have a
>physical existence in order to experience and express. In this
>context experiencing being a down and out is just as valid as
>experiencing corporate leadership. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE
>WHATSOEVER.
I can't quite agree with you on that. Shouldn't we seek to become
competent in whatever we do, and if we do that, would it be fair to
be down and out? There are some extreme Cultural Differences here,
but hopefully not ones that are very serious, because I think deep
down we would agree on many things.
> If we are being true to ourselves there will always be a means to
>obtain what we NEED, as opposed to vast amounts of money that we do
>not need!
If you are ever inclined to do so, read the "Spiritual Illiteracy"
article on our web page. <http://knowledgism.com/spirit.html>
> Promising wealth as the outcome of spiritual "training" is
>replacing one set of pre-programmed misconceptions with another
>and is not going to lead to any proper reorientation. It could well
>be that in a particular incarnation a particular soul is looking to
>experience poverty.
Maybe so. But that also seems to be an excuse for failure.
> You see, in spiritual terms there no such thing
>as comfort or discomfort.
But which do you prefer? If you choose "comfort" does that make
you less spiritual?
> The pursuit of pleasure or wealth and prosperity is meaningless.
>It is just experience and expression and nothing else.
Are you saying that it doesn't matter to you whether you win or
lose in a game?
> Well this has come out sounding like an out and out criticism of
>knowledgism. It is not meant to be that. It is a personal view
>which I am ready to have changed.
>Best wishes,
>Eric.
>PS.
> I am not going to criticize Knowledgism, it obviously appeals to
>a great many!
OK.
> But I do feel very strongly that to associate it with anything
>spiritual is very misleading.
If you truly are locked in that position, I may never be able
to convince you otherwise.
> Alt.spiritual.enhancement is misleadingly named.
Why? It is NOT just a Knowledgism newsgroup. True, we sponsored
it in the beginning because we saw a need. You are in it. And you
are interested in Spiritual Enhancement aren't you? So am I. And
so are most of the others who tune in here.
I have a difficulty getting most of my Knowledgism friends to join
in here. So the fact is that most of the participants aren't from
our group. But, even if they were, the idea that we are not
operating on a truly spiritual level is a very definite
misconception.
> Hope you don't think the worse of me for it,
Of course not. Thanks for making me think. It so happens that
your comments WERE about Spirituality, and very much on topic.
Best regards,
Charlie Dunn
http://www.knowledgism.com
cha...@knowledgism.com
Allen
> >Charlie Dunn wrote:
> >
> >I've seen some very informed quotes from the Bible in this newsgroup.
> So
> >maybe someone can tell me where the following appears in the Bible:
> "The
> >meek shall inherit the earth." Is that either the exact quote or
> close to
> >it?
Charlie,
I missed the first part of this thread, but, just to make sure you got
the answer to your question;
Psalm 37, verse 11:
But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in
the abundance of peace.
Meek in the Old Testament comes from a Hebrew word which generally
means, "weak, poor, and self-afflicted with restriction".
Matthew 5, verse 5:
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Meek in the New Testament comes froma Greek word which means,
generally, "humble".
Doesn't sound like a desirable "blessing" to me: sounds like a
proactively case-driven asylum.
See Mark Twain's "Letters From the Earth" for an outragously humorous
but cutting analysis of this and other Christian propositions.
-0-
--
Allen, Speaker for Acceptance | Acceptance Services Center
spe...@asc.org -0- Box 390696 Mtn Vw CA 94039
http://www.asc.org | (650) 964-3436
Email list: Accept-L...@lists.best.com to subscribe; FAQ on Website
Subject ok No signature, just the word subscribe as the message content.
Charlie Dunn
Regarding my questions about "meek", as mentioned in the Bible...
On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 23:18:57 -0800, Allen <spe...@asc.org> wrote:
>I missed the first part of this thread, but, just to make sure you got
>the answer to your question;
>Psalm 37, verse 11:
> But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in
>the abundance of peace.
> Meek in the Old Testament comes from a Hebrew word which generally
>means, "weak, poor, and self-afflicted with restriction".
>Matthew 5, verse 5:
> Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
> Meek in the New Testament comes froma Greek word which means,
>generally, "humble".
>Doesn't sound like a desirable "blessing" to me: sounds like a
>proactively case-driven asylum.
Doesn't sound too desirable to me either, though I would like to see
some of the more active "flame-throwers", who seemingly subscribe
to a fundamentalist view of the Bible, to exhibit some of that
"meekness"! :-)
>See Mark Twain's "Letters From the Earth" for an outragously humorous
>but cutting analysis of this and other Christian propositions.
Thanks, Allen. I remember some of of Mark Twain's "Letters From the
Earth", but I'll look forward to finding a copy and re-reading it.
Charlie
EricM
>> >Charlie Dunn wrote:
>> >
>> >I've seen some very informed quotes from the Bible in this
newsgroup.
[...]
>>>Charlie,
Allen wrote :
>I missed the first part of this thread, but, just to make sure you
got
>the answer to your question;
>
>Psalm 37, verse 11:
> But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves
in
>the abundance of peace.
>
> Meek in the Old Testament comes from a Hebrew word which generally
>means, "weak, poor, and self-afflicted with restriction".
>
>Matthew 5, verse 5:
> Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
>
> Meek in the New Testament comes from a Greek word which means,
>generally, "humble".
Humble comes from "humus" meaning earth or ground. So if "Meek" means
humble then the meek are already of the earth. So looking at it this
way it's a question of the value of inheriting the Earth rather than
the actuality of it. What does the Earth symbolise?
(I just love contradictions).
Eric
DW Suiter
"EricM" <Er...@adrylain.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"Earth" symbolizes the mind of mankind.
DW Suiter
"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
Charlie Dunn
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:00:07 GMT, gen...@usit.net (DW Suiter) wrote:
>"Earth" symbolizes the mind of mankind.
> DW Suiter
>
> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
D.W. .... I'm not refusing to see. I just don't understand the above.
Would you explain.
Thank you,
Charlie
EricM
Hi Charlie,
Charlie Dunn wrote:
>(DW Suiter) wrote:
>
>
>>"Earth" symbolizes the mind of mankind.
>> DW Suiter
>>
>> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
>
>D.W. .... I'm not refusing to see. I just don't understand the
above.
>
>Would you explain.
>
>Thank you,
>Charlie
It could be that my comments are appearing on this NG with monotonous
ubiquity, but here I am again.
I cannot see this definition/symbology of "earth" either. I think mind
can only be defined in terms of the ideas it contains. Earth is
substance and mind is not, and using it in defining "earth" seems a
bit awry.
Earth is a substance that offers resistance, we don't sink into the
earth when we stand on it (not usually)! A soul needs resistance to
experience itself and thus develop character. The resistance is
offered by physical existence and physical existence is of the earth.
The physical body is an earthly body and in the physical body the soul
encounters resistance from other souls in other physical bodies, other
wills, and so develops character in coming up against them, (and
possibly a few black eyes and dented egos).
To get back to the words "meek" and "humble":
Humility, or the act of being humble, is an admirable quality in an
experienced "old" soul full of character, it knows itself near fully,
it is aware of its power and its ability to actualise its will and has
nothing to prove, so to speak. In a young inexperienced soul humility
is a terrible debilitating thing and comes about through having got
too much resistance too soon, before becoming properly formed, perhaps
through abuse.
So whether meekness is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how
evolved the individual soul is, how much character it has gained.
Behind it can be power gained through experience and the wisdom not to
be foolish with it.
For a highly developed soul to enforce its will simply for the sake of
it is a very undignified thing to do! For a young soul to exhibit
meekness and seal itself away behind the fear resulting from too much
too soon is an awfull thing.
To be perfectly honest I don't think "The meek shall inherit the
earth" is a very informative piece of writing.
Another wiseacreing from you eccentric English chum,
Eric M.
DW Suiter
cha...@knowledgism.com (Charlie Dunn) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:00:07 GMT, gen...@usit.net (DW Suiter) wrote:
>
>
>>"Earth" symbolizes the mind of mankind.
>> DW Suiter
>>
>> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
>
>D.W. .... I'm not refusing to see. I just don't understand the above.
>
>Would you explain.
>
>Thank you,
>Charlie
Hello Charlie. As all things of God pertain to the spiritual,
metaphors were constantly used by those who scribed scriptures.
"Earth" is one; "house" is another word and term used to describe the
mind of man.
It is the place where "seed" is planted. Adam, was formed from the
"dust" of the earth; dust being small matters compared to rock or
stones. Anyway, God planted a garden East of Eden; so scriptures say.
This "garden" was what grew in the mind of Adam, who had received the
"Seed" of God. As Jesus of Nazareth explained in the parable of the
sower; the Seed is the Word of God. It is also "Light" which
enlightens man.
Adam; mankind; already existed as a physical being. What God created
was a mind and spirit in him. God is Spirit, so also His creation in
His image and likeness.
The "seed of Adam" refers to the word of "fallen" mankind. "Seed" is
as "waters" of scripture; words, teachings, and speakings.
The mind of man may be a place where selected seed is planted, or
where different seed comes at random and a wilderness is the resulting
growth. "Food for thought" is what the mind digests and makes part of
itself, the same as the physical body. Meditating or dwelling on a
"seed" that has been planted in the mind, causes the seed to "take
root;" to remain in the mind. The more thought given to this matter,
the more it expands and grows. The "fruit" of this "seed" which has
grown into a "tree" is to bring the thought to fruition; to make this
a principle which becomes a part of ones life.
The "earth" of scripture refers to the "prepared place" where seed is
planted for the crop and "harvest." Adam allowed the "enemy" to plant
his "seed" which overgrew and choked out the growth from the "Seed" of
God. Adam took on a new mind and spirit, allowing the mind and spirit
of God to "die." Adam; as is written; "died." It was a spiritual
death, not a physical death.
The "new covenant" of God as taught by Jesus and the apostles,
includes the promise of God to create a new mind and spirit in
mankind; to remove the old mind and spirit which has come from the
"seed" of Adam handed down through the many generations. As Jesus
explained, it is by receiving the Living Word, which is the Seed of
the Living God.
"Religion" has altered scriptural teachings, changing them from
spiritual matters to carnal matters by their interpretation and
understanding.
Hope this helps.