Why the NT was written in Aramaic and Greek

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Dismissed yes, but not for the reasons that you think.

The reason you do is because you seem to believe that I consider Caruso as evidence of anything, as a source I would recommend or that I use, or as in any other way something I would suggest is anything but a futile, misinformed attempt to accomplish something impossible.

You seem to have mistaken my attempt to use sources of the kind you do in with some confused notion of what I use. I didn't know the guy's name until an idea occurred to me out of sheer desperation (facing someone so determined to remain ignorant rather than at the very least attempt to demonstrate just for your own gratification that Alexander's claims have substance). I thought perhaps that, as you reject out of hand the indoctrinated, biased scholarship (despite not reading any scholarship or knowing what it consists of), if I avoided the "indoctrinated experts" and found someone without credentials you might begin to at least attempt some kind of critical approach to Alexander even if just to demonstrate the veracity of his claims.

I didn't seek out Caruso because I believe him to be a credible source, but because you revel in using unreliable sources and I thought that, just maybe, another unreliable, non-credentialed source that disagrees with the current far more unreliable fraud you rely on now, you might question your dogma. I was wrong.

In a nutshell, I dismiss Caruso on the same grounds you dismiss Alexander

No, you don't. Quite apart from the fact that I dismiss Caruso and favor the sources I've been trying (and failing) to get you to at least gain some familiarity with: scholarship, the reasons I Alexander are not the reasons you dismissed Caruso.

There are those who lack credentials but are experts. I dismiss Alexander because he's a lying, manipulative pathetically inept hack with less than no credibility who peddles idiocy the depths of which are rivaled only by his dishonesty. I don't dismiss him because he doesn't have credentials, but because I am familiar with everything topic he touches on and a great deal more (which isn't saying much, as his writings are so devoid of content), and having familiarity with these topics I know he either is ignorant of or deliberately avoids them (the way he misrepresents Metzger and ignores the parts of Metzger's text that are inconvenient).

I dismiss him because it is almost impossible to know anything about the relevant subjects and not find Alexander's claims laughable and pathetic.

though you disagree that they are the same grounds, and that is because you somehow think your academia gives you some special insight

"Special insight"? Your source misrepresents the few sources he cites, refuses to offer any evidence of his claims, and a cursory knowledge of comparative & historical linguistics is sufficient to determine his claims are bogus.

while I see the same specialized academic cat's eye view as a deficit

So it is preferable to evaluate Alexander's claims as true or not true by
1) Dismissing the entirety of scholarship on any and all related topics without ever knowing what this consists of
2) Being incapable of evaluating any claim about any texts
3) Not knowing any of the relevant languages or even knowing enough about languages in general to know that Alexander is full of crap
4) Refusing to try to educate yourself using any sources that challenge what you want to believe
5) Refusing to to answer simple questions that challenge your views (like the ways in which the Pe****ta translates itself because it follows the Greek or the fact that you can't read English from the 1400s but you trust Alexander to know how Jesus' Aramaic sounded)
6) Defending your arguments by repeating the same thing, appealing to the sources you are defending, or simply dismissing sources you haven't read or statements you cannot evaluate (you could, of course, if you chose to, but for some reason I don't understand you seem drawn to dogma).

So not only are you indoctrinated (or is it hypnotized?), but ignorant to boot.

There is no argument you have presented that is your own, and as you simply parrot a few sites there is nothing you present that I don't know. If I am so ignorant, why have I still not received questions to my answers and why are you incapable of addressing my arguments? All you do is parrot websites and when challenged appeal to some nebulous criticism of scholarship you aren't familiar with and more repetitive parroting of website.

If that is knowledge, I am glad to be ignorant.

I have listened to formally-trained Spanish speaking people who have a wider vocabulary range and command of the language in general than I, but my pronunciation and inflection of the words I do know is far superior and more authentic than theirs.

Ignoring for the moment the idea of "superior" phonology or authentic pronunciation, you have offered yet another indication that Alexander is full of it. The "Spanish" of Jesus' day was Latin. How does your pronunciation compare with Cicero? How does your inflection compare to Plautus?

 

[godnotgod]

If that is knowledge, I am glad to be ignorant.

You are the one who is the advertised academic, but in spite of it, choose to descend into the depths of ad hominem attacks in order to make yourself appear bigger than you actually are, a sure sign of some sort of inner character deficiency. At that point, the discussion, as far as I am concerned, is lost, and so my allusion to you being ignorant does no further harm. It's just a reflection of where you're at. OK?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Being wrong in and of itself is not fraud, until you advertise yourself publicly as a bona-fide translator of a language that is not your native language

Nobody is a native speaker of the Aramaic of Jesus' day. I showed you this by asking you, a native English speaker, to tell me what a few lines of English said. You couldn't. Why not? You're a native speaker and I wasn't asking you to translate English from 2,000 years ago, so why couldn't you?

You are the one who is the advertised academic

I'm a neuroscientist, not a biblical scholar and this is just a hobby for me.

So because I say this is a hobby that makes me and "advertised academic"? My status as an academic (advertised or not) is dependent upon my work in my field. I prefer to read scholarship, that is true. However, I do read sensationalist garbage (that I pay for) like The Jesus Mysteries and my training in Eastern practices far exceeds yours. What do you offer than a 10 year old couldn't obtain from a few google searches? If you have more than that to offer than please, I beg of you, do so. I am so very tired of having to think of more ways I can communicate to you the reasons that your lack of knowledge matters here as it ensures your preference for sources is not based on any ability to determine accuracy.

but in spite of it, choose to descend into the depths of ad hominem attacks

So not only are you indoctrinated (or is it hypnotized?), but ignorant to boot

Now go to your QiGong instructor and get some enlightenment

It's called indoctrination, but it's really a form of hypnotic trance.

in order to make yourself appear bigger than you actually are

You haven't just insulted me, but insulted all of my teachers/masters including one of the world's foremost masters of Chinese traditional practices (from medicine to martial arts). What you haven't done is offer anything other than ad hominem attacks other than to claim you have special access to mystic knowledge you obtained from websites and google searchers. I don't mind your ad hominem attacks though. It's your dogmatic devotion to remaining ignorant of that whicj you are capable of learning that is upsetting. You're a Google and Youtube trained mystic who, rather than following even that path honestly and with diligent study, chooses the fast-food version and proceeds to insult real masters who dedicated years to study and practice that you claim to represent by using internet searches. If you were even familiar with the mystic practices you allude to, that would at least be a step in the right direction.

It's just a reflection of where you're at. OK?

Not really. I dislike those who claim omniscience through cultural appropriation and insult the vary masters of tradition they lay claim to because they can use the internet. Not quite as much as it bothers me to see dogmatic devotion to remaining in the dark, but still not ok.

At the end of the day, all the people who you've held up as examples have more in common with me than you, your claims to understanding are limited by a refusal to learn, your dismissal of "Western academia" depends upon "Western" modern technology to understand what practitioners study for years, but you seem to find comfort in this. Perhaps dogma is the scaffolding upon which you can remain upright. I don't know, but clearly you get something out of it that justifies your methods and motivations.

 

[godnotgod]

You haven't just insulted me, but insulted all of my teachers/masters including one of the world's foremost masters of Chinese traditional practices (from medicine to martial arts). What you haven't done is offer anything other than ad hominem attacks other than to claim you have special access to mystic knowledge you obtained from websites and google searchers. I don't mind your ad hominem attacks though. It's your dogmatic devotion to remaining ignorant of that whicj you are capable of learning that is upsetting. You're a Google and Youtube trained mystic who, rather than following even that path honestly and with diligent study, chooses the fast-food version and proceeds to insult real masters who dedicated years to study and practice that you claim to represent by using internet searches. If you were even familiar with the mystic practices you allude to, that would at least be a step in the right direction.

Ah, but it's perfectly OK for you to insult me, is it? Truth is, you've got me knee jerk stereotyped to fit your ideal negative image of who I am to lend high contrast to your view, but in truth, you know nothing about me and why I continue to resist your slanted Western approach disguised as honesty and truth. It's not, because it only renders pieces of the truth in a highly structured and condescending manner, not just personally (to me), but in the general condescending way the West regards the East, for example, and how science regards mystical views. So basically, I have a mistrust of anything you say, no matter how much 'factual' material or academia or minutiae you regurgitate here. Bottom line is that, while I will look at your material out of curiosity, I don't feel compelled to make a decision of acceptance at any point, which I must see in a larger context. But even more, I am getting a picture of you as someone who definitely has an agenda as regards the Greek NT and materialism. So far, your rejection of any other view has been pretty much automatic knee jerk variety.

Not really. I dislike those who claim omniscience through cultural appropriation and insult the vary masters of tradition they lay claim to because they can use the internet. Not quite as much as it bothers me to see dogmatic devotion to remaining in the dark, but still not ok.

At the end of the day, all the people who you've held up as examples have more in common with me than you, your claims to understanding are limited by a refusal to learn, your dismissal of "Western academia" depends upon "Western" modern technology to understand what practitioners study for years, but you seem to find comfort in this. Perhaps dogma is the scaffolding upon which you can remain upright. I don't know, but clearly you get something out of it that justifies your methods and motivations.

Interesting to know Deepak Chopra has more in common with you than with me. So you, then, are God, pretending to be a neuroscientist. Bravo!

 

[godnotgod]

Moving on.....


Here, that world-famous Liar and Manipulator of Truth and Metzger, the illustrious Aramaic scholar, Andrew Gabriel Roth, talks about how the NT cannot have been first written in Greek, why the Old Syriac is not authentic, while also giving a couple plugs for his Aramaic-English NT translation based on the Kabouris Codex:

[yay, YouTube!, LOL!]:biglaugh:

Enjoy!


[youtube]SMwEuJxoQfQ[/youtube]
The 5th Edition Aramaic English New Testament Interview (Part 1) - YouTube

 

[outhouse]

Moving on.....

Nonsense


your only moving backwards.

talks about how the NT cannot have been first written in Greek, why the Old Syriac is not authentic,

What a bunch of pathetic nonsense. :slap:

 

[godnotgod]

What the Church said to Galileo:

Nonsense
What a bunch of pathetic nonsense. :slap:

your only moving backwards

How it looks to someone who's fudged Greek NT primacy in an effort to hide the real truth.

 

[outhouse]

What the Church said to Galileo:






How it looks to someone who's fudged Greek NT primacy in an effort to hide the real truth.

Nonsense


There are no Aramaic transliterations, and the people who were writing were writing to Romans in the Roman Empire


I wish people learned something before posting complete nonsense.

 

[godnotgod]

I'll do you one better. Rather than simply giving what your source left out in order to garner support through his dishonest, misrepresentation of what Metzger said, I'll also supply you with the beginning of the liar you continually support follows the end of his "quote" with, as well as what Metzger said in more recent sources your source ignored in favor of quote-mining the one he did.

I did not request 'one better'; I requested what Metzger wrote that Roth deliberately left out.

It appears that, besides Rabbula, other leaders in the Syrian Church also had a share in producing the Pe****ta.

"Rabulla did not create the Pe****ta, he created the Old Syriac.[which is what Western scholars call the Pe****ta.]
The Pe****ta does not stem from the Old Syriac, the Old Syriac stems from the Pe****ta, possibly via intermediate Greek versions."


Andrew Gabriel Roth, AKA 'professional liar and bon vivant'

Does the Pe****ta stem from the Old Syriac?

 

[godnotgod]

There are no Aramaic transliterations...

Pe****ta Transliterated -Syriac New Testament -9.x | e-Sword Users

The Khabouris Codex is written in Estrangela script.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ah, but it's perfectly OK for you to insult me, is it?

No. However, I don't mind or care when you insult me, as it doesn't bother me. It's when you insult thousands of others including at least one person who represents what you purport to respect. Every time you have referred to my "qigong" or "qigong" teacher you are reducing a master of Eastern traditions & practices to a qigong instructor (whether directly, such as the numerous times you've referred to my "qigong instructor", or indirectly by referring to my "qigong" which exists only insofar as part of my instruction I received from a master included this). Qigong for him wasn't a tradition or a practice any more than "qi" was or "qin na". And like "kung fu" he saw vast numbers of Westerners misunderstanding it and many teachers who didn't understand it (Western or not). The difference between acupressure and Dian Xue, between healing and harming (even killing) was simply a matter of location. Qigong was as essential for health and healing as for combat. To refer to it as you have done reflects (he would say) a fundamental misunderstanding of what Qigong was (although I think his students would be the only one's who were bothered by your insulting dismissal of him as a "qigong instructor"; he didn't get upset).

Truth is, you've got me knee jerk stereotyped to fit your ideal negative image of who I am to lend high contrast to your view

Let's imagine that this is true.

It's called indoctrination, but it's really a form of hypnotic trance.

Here you fit thousands of scholars into "your ideal negative image of what" they are, but whereas I conversed with in multiple threads and innumerable posts, you have nothing whatsoever that you can point to or rely on for your understanding of scholars and scholarship. You do not read scholarship nor have you participated in the academic community.

you know nothing about me

This is prima facie untrue. I know, for example, that you are literate. That is an obvious inference, but it is not the only one I am able to make. You have made plenty of statements that indicate many, many, many things about what you know directly (such as through your account of Spanish pronunciation) or indirectly (such as your statement about a "town center" in first-century Nazareth). We all reveal things by our choice of words, our use of punctuation, choosing a member name, using a specific font color, etc. For example, your use of terms that originated in Gestalt psychology to refer to things partly similar but far from equivalent to what they mean is revealing. Your title change from the grammatically problematic Sanskrit that I mentioned long before another did (and your reaction to what I said vs. another) is meaningful. I'm sure you are familiar with forensic psychology and with "tells" in poker so you know that we reveal things we do not intend in ways we often don't realize.

why I continue to resist your slanted Western approach

Says the Westerner who can't read any Eastern texts based on an understanding of Western approaches in scholarship gleaned from...? You don't read scholarship and to the extent you have been exposed to any Eastern approach it has been through a Western language (through e.g., lot of YouTube clips of Goswami). This "Western approach" is a fiction. The scholarship from the Near East in places where modern Aramaic is spoken (much from Israel, but also Iran and elsewhere) uses the same approach. Even better, the universities in "the East" in which Semitic languages have shown repeatedly the ways in which modern Aramaic is littered with influences from other languages and that "liturgical" Aramaic your source speaks of is not just dead, it's older and more removed from the Aramaic of Jesus than the Rabbinic Aramaic sources.

but in the general condescending way the West regards the East

You mean the kind of cultural appropriation you commit so frequently?

how science regards mystical views

I worked as a research consultant in a study on parapsychology. Where, I wonder, did your familiarity with mystic traditions come from?

So basically, I have a mistrust of anything you say

Luckily, though, I don't require you to trust me. I can always refer you to sources, including those who grew up speaking Aramaic dialects and dedicated their lives to studying Semitic language, the history of Judaism, the history of Syrian Christianity, etc. When I assert something to be true about the NT or SYriac or Aramaic or whatever, I can refer you to sources that are also open as to their methods and research (unlike your source, who explicitly refuses to produce any evidence that he has the manuscript he claims).

The problem isn't that you don't trust me, it's that you have to choose who to trust based on whatever subjective criteria you've developed as you cannot actually read the relevant texts. However, this doesn't mean you cannot learn much more than you know (if only to defend your views), yet you refuse to. I admit I find it very odd- the Westerner's fantasies of "the mystic Orient" is nothing new, but mystic fundamentalism is, I admit, something I've never come across before.

while I will look at your material out of curiosity

Has it ever occurred to you that almost without exception I do not respond to your posts for your benefit? This is a discussion board, but that doesn't mean that the people involved in any given discussion are the only ones reading posts.

But even more, I am getting a picture of you as someone who definitely has an agenda

An agenda? Interesting.

"rien, rien n'avait d'importance.../nothing, nothing is of significance" Camus' L'estranger

as regards the Greek NT and materialism

You should read my posts on reductionism and as for the philosophical position of materialism, well...

"Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux : c'est le suicide. Juger que la vie vaut ou ne vaut pas la peine d'être vécue, c'est répondre à la question fondamentale de la philosophie. Le reste, si le monde a trois dimensions, si l'esprit a neuf ou douze catégories, vient ensuite."

[There is only the one truly important philosophical problem: there is suicide. To decide that life is worthwhile, or is not worth the trouble of living, is to answer the fundamental question of philosophy. The rest (whether the earth has three dimensions, whether the "mind" has nine or twelve categories) follow after.]

Your view of "the Greek NT" depends upon sources that tell you there could be such an agenda.

I have (or at least had) an agenda: the endless pursuit of truth through knowledge of any kind, chasing the horizon knowing I will never reach it but hopefully finding the chase to yield faith in something. Now my agenda is to go through the motions.

Im Moment, da man nach Sinn und Wert des Lebens fragt, ist man krank, denn beides gibt es ja in objektiver Weise nicht; man hat nur eingestanden, daß man einen Vorrat von unbefriedigter Libido hat, und irgend etwas anderes muß damit vorgefallen sein, eine Art Gärung, die zur Trauer und Depression führt. Großartig sind meine Aufklärungen gewiß nicht. Vielleicht weil ich selbst zu pessimistisch bin. Mir geht ein 'advertisement' im Kopf herum, das ich für das kühnste und gelungenste Stück amerikanischer Reklame halte: "Why live, if you can be buried for ten Dollars?"...
(Sigmund Freud in a letter to Marie Bonaparte, 13 August 1937, in Letters of Sigmund Freud 1873-1939, ed. Ernst L. Freud, trans. Tania and James Stern(London: Hogarth Press, 1961), p 432).

But you are, of course, free to think whatever you want. There is no opinion you could have of me that would be worse than my own.

your rejection of any other view has been pretty much automatic knee jerk variety.

I trust you can find Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

quid est quod fuit ipsum quod futurum est quid est quod factum est ipsum quod fiendum est [10] nihil sub sole novum nec valet quisquam dicere ecce hoc recens est iam enim praecessit in saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos [11] non est priorum memoria sed nec eorum quidem quae postea futura sunt erit recordatio apud eos qui futuri sunt in novissimo

So you, then, are God, pretending to be a neuroscientist

"Wohin ist Gott?...ich will es euch sagen! Wer haben ihn getötet..Was taten wir, als wir diese Erde von ihrer Sonne losketteten? Wohin bewegt sie sich nun? Wohin bewegen wir uns? Fort von allen Sonnen? Stürzen wir nicht fortwährend? ...Irren wir nicht wie durch ein unendliches Nichts? Haucht uns nicht der leere Raum an? Ist es nicht kälter geworden? Kommt nicht immerfort die Nacht und mehr Nacht? "
"Where is God? I will tell you. We have killed him...What did we do, when we loosed this earth from its sun? Where is it going now? Where are we ourselves going? Away from all suns? Do we not plummet unceasingly?...Do we not stay as though through an unending nothingness? Does not the void breath upon us? Has it not become colder? Comes there now not ever night and more night?" Nietzsche's Der fröhliche Wissenschaft.

 

[outhouse]

Pe****ta Transliterated -Syriac New Testament -9.x | e-Sword Users

The Khabouris Codex is written in Estrangela script.

Sorry garbage link with no value or credibility to the conversation.


You fail.

To understand the NT was written in the Diaspora, what language did they speak in the Diaspora?

 

[godnotgod]

I have (or at least had) an agenda: the endless pursuit of truth through knowledge of any kind, chasing the horizon knowing I will never reach it but hopefully finding the chase to yield faith in something. Now my agenda is to go through the motions.

Who is it that has an agenda; that is the pursuer going through the motions; who never reaches the goal; the chaser of the horizon? Who is that?

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

"Well killed; well saved!"

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry garbage link with no value or credibility to the conversation.


You fail.

To understand the NT was written in the Diaspora, what language did they speak in the Diaspora?

You asked for a transliterated Pe****ta. I pointed you to one. It's up to you to go get it. It's not going to jump into your lap.

You fail.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

The full quote: "If you meet the buddha, kill the buddha; if you meet an ancestor, kill the ancestor."

"Well killed; well saved!"

I don't think you understand the kōan. But then, you've never spent time studying under a Japanese master. I suppose, though, that neither have I, as it was Hatsumi's disciples who trained me, and they were Western (with one exception)

Who is it that has an agenda

Everybody in some sense. Why do you dogmatically dismiss Western scholarship you have not read yet mischaracterize nonetheless with reference to biases, indoctrinations and other, "knee-jerk" reactions?

What is it that motivates your (unintentional) trivializing of Eastern cultures by representing yourself as something other than a Westerner using sources (written or spoken) in Western languages via Western media to depict a romanticized "mystic orient"?

Is it agenda that drives you to deride the very Western science you use to familiarize yourself with commercialized pseudo-Eastern ideas communicated in Western languages? If not, what is it?

that is the pursuer going through the motions; who never reaches the goal; the chaser of the horizon?

-If you're studying seated Buddha then this is killing Buddha
But no doubt you are as familiar with setsu butsu as you are pithy Zen formulae.

Who is that?

I saw a man pursuing the horizon
Round and round they sped
I was disturbed at this
I accosted the man
"It is futile," I said, "You can never-"
"You lie," he cried
And ran on
- Stephen Crane

 

[godnotgod]

The full quote: "If you meet the buddha, kill the buddha; if you meet an ancestor, kill the ancestor."

I don't think you understand the kōan. But then, you've never spent time studying under a Japanese master. I suppose, though, that neither have I, as it was Hatsumi's disciples who trained me, and they were Western (with one exception)

If you think you need to spend time studying under a Japanese master, then you don't understand the koan.

You are still attached to external authority. You won't get anywhere until you come to realize your own.

"Place no head above your own"
Buddha

Everybody in some sense. Why do you dogmatically dismiss Western scholarship you have not read yet mischaracterize nonetheless with reference to biases, indoctrinations and other, "knee-jerk" reactions?

What is it that motivates your (unintentional) trivializing of Eastern cultures by representing yourself as something other than a Westerner using sources (written or spoken) in Western languages via Western media to depict a romanticized "mystic orient"?

Your problem is that you are still thinking 'East' and 'West'. There are no such things.

The Southern Mountain
Sekiso lived and taught on the Southern Mountain, and Kankei lived and taught on the Northern Mountain. One day, a monk came from the Northern Monastery to the Southern Monastery in search of teaching. Sekiso said to him, "My Southern Monastery is no better than the Monastery in the North." The monk did not know what reply to make. When he returned to Kankei and told him the story, Kankei said, "You should have told him that I am ready to enter Nirvana any day."

Is it agenda that drives you to deride the very Western science you use to familiarize yourself with commercialized pseudo-Eastern ideas communicated in Western languages? If not, what is it?

We do not think the tail of the elephant to be the elephant.

-If you're studying seated Buddha then this is killing Buddha
But no doubt you are as familiar with setsu butsu as you are pithy Zen formulae.

There is no Buddha to kill nor any killer of the Buddha.

I saw a man pursuing the horizon
Round and round they sped
I was disturbed at this
I accosted the man
"It is futile," I said, "You can never-"
"You lie," he cried
And ran on
- Stephen Crane

You've still not answered the question: who is the pursuer? who is that who runs on; who chases after truth and knowledge? You want to tell me all about your Western science, but you don't yet know who it is that wants to do so. You have studied under great masters and have not yet achieved the fruits of your labor. Now you can study under a pithy Zen master and actually break through the Gateless Gate, but first must know who it is that breaks through.

The know-nothing pithy Zen master is pointing to the moon, but you are angered and attack his finger, and so have missed the moon.

 

[godnotgod]

I worked as a research consultant in a study on parapsychology. Where, I wonder, did your familiarity with mystic traditions come from?

There is the study of mysticism, then there is knowledge of mystic traditions, then there is the mystical experience itself. Descriptions of Reality are not Reality itself.

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

There is only the one truly important philosophical problem: there is suicide. To decide that life is worthwhile, or is not worth the trouble of living, is to answer the fundamental question of philosophy.

This is not good enough. One must first answer the question as to whether there is a self that must make the decision. The question is not: 'to be or not to be", but what is.

Descartes was wrong. There is no thinker of thoughts.

 

[outhouse]

You asked for a transliterated Pe****ta. I pointed you to one. It's up to you to go get it. It's not going to jump into your lap.

You fail.

Your not bringing anything credible to the table.


Its nonsense

 

[godnotgod]

Your not bringing anything credible to the table.


Its nonsense

Calling everything I bring 'nonsense' is pure twaddle! :slap:

Did you even watch the video I brought to the table so you can hear a couple of the arguments for Pe****ta primacy from a noted Aramaic scholar? You apparently didn't but then you come here and shout 'nonsense' when you aren't even paying attention.

Here...go fetch....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwEuJxoQfQ

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you think you need to spend time studying under a Japanese master, then you don't understand the koan.

"There was an archer long ago (Yang Youji) who was the best archer in the land even as a young man. And he knew it and was proud. He believed his skills were unsurpassed because he was simply better. It was not his teachers or his style or his bow; Yang believed his talent came from within. One day he came upon an elder whose balance and aim was so perfect he could pour liquid into a jar with an opening the size of a ring while standing on a chair and yet every drop went into the jar without so much as hitting rim.

Naturally, Yang was amazed at such perfect aim and balance and asked the elder how he could do this. 'Training' the elder answered. Yang was ashamed, for he realized that he was better than all other archers because he practiced harder and trained more than they. There was nothing special about his skill.

So he increased his dedication, not because he desired to be better than others but because he sought to better himself. Eventually, to be rid of distractions, he travelled to the mountains of Tian Shan. Years later, a fellow archer heard where Yang was staying and climbed up the mountain to visit his old friend. After Yang greeted his friend, he noticed the bow on his friend's back. Yang pointed to the bow and asked 'hat's that thing on your back?'

Then his friend was amazed, for he realized that Yang had mastered archery."

I put that in quotations because it is a story, but I am not quoting it just repeating what I was taught. The term "kung fu" translates literally to "energy" and "time' but means (more or less) "hard work". It did not refer to Chines martial arts, because anybody who sought to perfect any practice from playing a musical instrument to dancing. The practice/instrument (training to us a bow to play a violin is the same as training to use a bow to shoot arrows). Perfection is not the mastery of the practice, but the point at which one's practice ceases to be physical and transcends both the practice and any instrument. Yang had mastered archery because after years of dedicated training he had reached perfection, and perfection can never be reached until the physical is no longer relevant.


How long have you practiced?

You are still attached to external authority.

"There was once a student who practiced Taijijian under a master. He carefully watched his masters every move for years and practiced these forms over and over and over again. Finally, his forms perfectly matched his master's. But to his surprise his master did not say his training was over. Instead, the student was told to leave and practice for a year on his own.

After a year the student came back ashamed. He confessed to his teacher that after practicing for a year on his on, he could no longer perform several forms exactly has he had learned. His master was displeased, and told the student to leave and train another year on his own. Yet after that year even more of the student's movements did not match those of his master. So once again his master sent him away. Over and over he left to study only to return and find he was less able to move exactly has his master did through the form and each year his master sent him away, displeased.

Finally, one year the student returned in despair. 'Master', he said, 'I have failed. I can no longer do any of the forms the way you taught me'. His master was pleased, for now the student had made the forms his own, not imitations of his teacher."

You've skipped the first step. Traditionally, Chinese martial arts do not have "belts", but the concept of the black belt exists within all traditional martial arts. It is when one has trained enough to go from a mimic to a student. It is when one's own path begins apart from one's teacher/trainer/master/etc.

You, however, claim omniscience and define "the mystic" because of access to "the source" (such as the YouTube link you provided to "a noted Aramaic scholar"). You are not yet at the level of a mimic, much less a student. The veneer of a of mystic traditions quote-mined and rooted in YouTube clips just makes you a slave to a shallow, commercialized versions of fast-food "spirituality". Yet you appear very sincere about the import you attribute to mystic practices and spirituality. Why not take it seriously?

You won't get anywhere until you come to realize your own.

You trust a film student against thousands of scholars and amateurs who describes a language that doesn't exist as authorities. You dismiss the authority of scholars and scientists but rely on "teachings" you get from youtube clips of people like Amit Goswami and Deepak Chopra. You depend upon authorities just to read e.g., Hindu and Buddhist texts, and constantly refer to "authorities" like your film student. Whatever differences there are between us, reliance on authorities describes you far more than it does me, as you defend a hack like Alexander against scholars you can't read but a language you don't know and linguistic methods you've never heard of.

"Place no head above your own"

You've claimed that you understand physics better than all physicists, that you speak for all mystics, and you insultingly dismiss scholars of all types because they are incapable of the understanding you possess. Compared to you, I and every scientist as well as all biblical scholars, linguists, etc., are inferior to you, as you have pointed out over and over again. Take your own advice.

Your problem is that you are still thinking 'East' and 'West'. There are no such things.

you know nothing about me and why I continue to resist your slanted Western approach disguised as honesty and truth.

There is no Buddha to kill nor any killer of the Buddha.

How very literal. Try again.

You've still not answered the question

You still aren't asking the right questions.

The know-nothing pithy Zen master is pointing to the moon

'Pithy formulae" refer to koan. And given your remark about killing the Buddha (very telling, by the way), I have to ask: what do you know of what I know? How much of what you espouse reflects an actual familiarity with the concepts you purport to be a proponent of?

There is the study of mysticism, then there is knowledge of mystic traditions, then there is the mystical experience itself.

Indeed. And given that you have are pretty much wholly unfamiliar with the first, apparently not only uninformed about the second but also understand such traditions inaccurately (those you are aware of, anyway), I wonder how much of the final (most important) part is a product of well-known unconscious/perceptual biases, cognitive errors, etc. Impossible to tell, of course. But it would be interesting to know.

Descriptions of Reality are not Reality itself

A point Plato made ~2,400 years ago.

This is not good enough. One must first answer the question as to whether there is a self that must make the decision

If there is no self that "must" make that decision, then there is no self that can, making the question useless because the answer is either "yes", in which case one need not ask the question, or "no", in which case one cannot make any such decision.

Spoiler: Modality

Also, deontic modality is irrelevant (as root, dynamic, or whatever linguistic categorization of modal construal that linguists have extended from the basic logical operators). Worse still, it's ambiguous.

Descartes was wrong. There is no thinker of thoughts.

That wasn't the arugment. Ego sum, ego existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum

["I am, I exist, however many times it is put forward by me, or [is] held in my mind, is true necessarily"]

The argument begins by assuming that there is no "thinker of thoughts". That's the first Meditation. In the 2nd, Descartes asked if it can be true, and answers by noting that merely asking "do I exist?" requires there to be a cognizant "I". In other words, to be able to ask "do I exist?" requires an "I" to ask this question, for if there were not "I", no mind or conscious entity, then this question could not be asked.

Did you even watch the video I brought to the table so you can hear a couple of the arguments for Pe****ta primacy from a noted Aramaic scholar?

Noted fraud, not scholar. Whatever your personal inabilities to free yourself of dogmatic faith in such a source, the views you or anybody else unfamiliar with Aramaic, scholarship, or Aramaic scholarship express do not make him a "noted scholar", just "noted".