 |
|
Bettelheim judiciously
- You may not like this: To Bruno Bettelheim things
- Now, why not also: [Check]
Get self-helped, but how?
GOOD or surreal tales can make our minds spin and reel a little. Maybe the
loveable and engrossing tales by Chuang-tzu (Zhuangzi)
and other master tellers can baffle the beginner. Yet parts of the effects could depend
on your base, including your upbringing - in other words your habituations. Some run
deep, and Jesus isn't the only authority to Jews, not even a big one. Instead they hail
the "I Am", which is translated into the Lord.
Even if Jesus solemnly stated he is "I Am", it was called blasphemy and not fit -
they didn't think it to be true and legal. So
 | |
Painting by Hoffman (section)
|
now Jews don't assume Jesus is their Lord, nor do we, in the light of the happening on
the mount, where God the Father - the Old Testament's Lord - appeared in front of Jesus
along with Moses and Eliah - and yet Jesus is Lord too - the Son. So it is said. You may
get confused by lots of things.
One of the first commandments goes against having religious images, and there
aren't any signs that crucifixes are specially welcome as exceptions. To the contrary,
the commandments go against handmade idols and foreign, other gods. As for crucifixes and
religious images of Jesus, including a painting by Hoffman, no God Father appeared in
flames to write down major amendments to the Ten Commanments for it.
Iconoclasm [Greek: 'image breaking'] means opposition to religious use of images,
as in the stark Biblical:
"You shall have no other gods before [besides] me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above
or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship
them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of
the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to
a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments." - Exodus
20:3-6.
No matter what God says back then, veneration of pictures and statues symbolizing
holy figures, Christian doctrine, and biblical events was an early feature of Christian
worship, and images and crucifixes became common. They were no longer under the Law,
remember.
Opponents of the use of pictures and statues claimed they led to idolatry. Canon
36 of the Synod of Elvira (c. 305) was one of the earliest to prohibit images in
churches, "lest that which is worshiped and venerated be depicted on the
walls."
The Trullan Synod (692) of the Third Council of Constantinople approved of the
use of images, and thus the debate was joined again. It was most pronounced in Asia
Minor, and especially around Constantinople, in the 700s and 800s, during the reigns of
several iconoclastic Byzantine emperors. The iconoclastic movement was paralleled by the
iconoclasm of Islam, Judaism, and Manichaeism.
Eastern Iconoclasm was opposed in the West by popes.
Iconoclasm was rejected at the Second Council of Nicea in 787, but ended only
during the minority of the Byzantine emperor Michael III (842-67), when icons were
brought back to the churches in solemn procession one Spring day in 842.
The iconoclastic controversy stimulated Byzantine artists to strive for spiritual
revelation in religious art rather than for naturalistic representation.
Iconoclasm was also a feature of the Protestant Reformation. Puritans were
especially hostile to the use of religious images, and some Protestants still consider
their use idolatrous..
Sources: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001, s.v. "Iconoclasm", and
the Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Iconoclasm".
Stern Martin Luther
In most versions of his smaller cathecism Martin Luther left out the commandment
against imagery (above). He did so because he too found God's commandment to be not good
enough. That seems stern. And earlier still, as we have been into, the Western Roman
Church said that images of Mary, saints and so on - images and statues - were all right
as well. It is also thought in the Church that it is led be the Holy Spirit - moving
on.
The hovering question is what images and statues that are used in worship and so
on, do to users.
In many a fare it helps to get good at guessing one's way, for in social and
cultural settings there may be no exact or correct answers or responses or ways of
handling this and that. If the canon below doesn't help you, getting handy and
self-helped in other ways -
Proper
measures in this terrain are educative, helpful for gaining sounder views, or
wisdom. Eventually the process of going into mankind-fit materiel helps self-esteem. And
self-esteem needs to rise high enough to be relied on.
Hence, we should neither be taken in and trust canon-forming bosses blindly, but
be largely entertained. That's one more thing that's overtly helpful about folk tale
classics and some notorious tales from later times too.
He conquered the East
THE LATIN writer Ovid (43 BC - AD 17) writes in his Metamorphoses that the god
Dionysos (later Bacchus) appears both with and without horns. Quote: He has
conquered the East as far as the land where swarthy India is watered by remote Ganges'
stream" [Met 94; Compare also the third paragraph of book 4 here, if you like] 
Now this gentle presence
appears
without his own horns
in an orgy of gladness.
He describes the virile Bacchus cult in several places, such as this one:
Wherever you go, young men's voices are raised in cheering, and women's voices join in
the chorus ... hollow cymbals clash to the sound of the ... flute's shrill
pipe.
The Theban women offered up their prayer to Bacchus,
saying: "May your gracious and gentle presence be with us now!" [Met 95] The
Danish writer Leo Hjortsoe takes us into the ritual ecstasy of Bacchus in a good book.
The pre-Greek wine-god won adherents by his wine in the first rounds - He seems to be a
glad giver, like Krishna, in a dreamlike, or a bit unreal peace, often worshipped by
ecstatic dance.
That god that could have been Krishna before
many Indian poets grabbed him and spelt out much; He was raised like an orphan, and
in the end he gained heaven and earth - but he was in reality above and beyond them
both. Still, his Dwarka kingdom was very much of this
world.
The god himself shows up as coming from Mediterranean
islands where vines were cultivated. He represents calm in the midst of anger, but not
only that. [Gh 78-85]
What this amounts to, is to hint at some
overlooked details for comparison, but there are further ones: Hare
Krishna might have been a god from Crete; Dionysos seems to have been so.
We have found an ancient reference that the Dionysos cult reached India
Ovid informs that the Dionysos cult reached India. In India lots of writers
composed the books that became the only sources of the changeling: Bhagavan (Lord)
Krishna.
(a) The Bhagavad
Gita [Wy; Wa] is merely a chapter, (or book, kanda) in the world's longest
epic, the ancient Mahabharata [Mmw]. The Mahabharata poem depicts the black
giant as a terrible slayer, but first a changelling that makes much of seducing pretty
milkmaids. In his trade he blows his flute and brings rapture - like Dionysos. Like him,
the idol fights his way up (in your dreams).
(b)The fairy-tale-resounding tall stories of him are further found in what's
called Srimat Bhagavatam [Sh]. It's a comprehensive book that hails god Vishnu in
poetic verse, and one part of it is called "Uddhava Gita". Here Krishna finds the time
fit to tell his follow-up to his other song-teaching, the Bhagavad Gita. The
"Uddhava Gita" is not particulary recognized as another work attibuted to Krishna in the
West, at least, but there are some very decent teachings in it here and there, as Aldous
Huxley observed too [cf. Sl] [READ MORE].
A man could do worse that being vigilant. (#1.5)
YOGANANDA'S monastic-steered society (SRF) binds Kriya members by their words to venerate
six gurus, including Krishna. In so doing ignoring that Jesus said no to having more than
one master - himself. It's a strange thing.
One more question: How many Krishnas can a man afford to venerate and not look
silly or outright pathetic?
In the Christian man's eye the hand-made idol king is always
abominable deep inside.
Has found it out: "We can all belong to several
Krishnas in dreamland, or what?"
(A Picasso drawing of Renoir.) (# 1.6)
On Representing Well
Hits and conclusive proof -
Paramahansa Yogananda states in his Autobiography that truth corresponds with
reality [Pa 476]. Now, Bhagavan Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that he is a whole lot.
We bring you a sample:
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds . . . The thoughts of my
pure devotees dwell in me . . . I, dwelling in their hearts . . . I am the Self . . .
seated in the hearts of all creatures . . . of vibrations I am the supernatural OM (AUM)
. . . among men I am the monarch . . . Among women I am fame, fortune, speech, memory,
intelligence, faithfulness and patience . . . [etc.] - Bhagavad Gita, samples
from Chapter 10 [Link]
In other passages he says to Arjuna that he is Arjuna himself, and so
on. Note the selection above.
What guarantee do we have that all these assertions are true to
fact? Both Buddha and Jesus say we have to learn to inspect well. Then you may also ask
for conclusive proof, for Krishna says, "I am the conclusive truth (10:32)".
Ask for evidence that is not insignificant, for he asserts, "I am the Himalayas
(10:25)", and they stand tall.
There are many bodies, created before man's, having one, two, three, four, or
many legs, or no legs at all; but of all of them I love the human body best. Men who
cultivate awareness look for me, the Supreme Lord, (who am different from what can be
grasped by the senses), directly in the human body. - Krishna in the Uddhava
Gita.
Is Having Idol Figures Lawful Now?
There is one more thing to chew on: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in
the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." -
The fable monster - half dolphin, half crocodile - that escapes this definition, escapes
it!
Another trick question is how lawful and beneficial it is to worship it after
adding redly coloured and partially gilded hair to it too. Here we go: (a) It is against
the Old Testament God's overt no to worshipping foreign gods, and (b) It seems unwise and
very unfit.
For was the Law cancelled through Jesus? Read some passages from Matthew 5 and
weep: "Heaven and earth disappear . . . Anyone who breaks one of the least of these
commandments [of the Law of Moses] and teaches others to do the same will be called least
in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches . . ." - From Matthew
5:18-19.
Note that this is what actually happened: Jesus and later the Church dispensed
with Sabbath ("Saturday") rest (one commandment), and later all the apostles and the Holy
Spirit dropped circumcision too (another Old Testament token of being one of God's people
was dropped), and so on. See Acts 15 and 21 in the matter. We have to ignore these
problems for now.
Bad omens and wicked kings can both be kingly and stately to look at.
We think there are good kings and bad kings. What follows is about Jewish ones and many,
many others in the history of mankind, perhaps. Was it an error to hail Jesus as a king
in his time in the light of God's Word in 1
Samuel 8? The story is below:
WHEN SAMUEL grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. But his sons
didn't walk in his ways. They perverted justice. So all the elders of Israel gathered
together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him,
"You're old, and your sons don't walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead
us, such as all the other nations have." But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us,"
this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him:
"Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it's not you they've rejected,
but they've rejected me as their king. As they've done from the day I brought them up out
of Egypt till this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they're doing to you. Now
listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the
king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a
king. He said,
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons
and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his
chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties,
and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of
war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks
and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and
vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your
grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys
he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves
will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king
you've chosen, and the Lord won't answer you in that day."
But the people refused to listen to Samuel.
"No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other
nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The
Lord answered,
"Listen to them and give them a king." (#3.3)
"Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again". [Amos 5:2] "You
are destroyed, O Israel . . . In my anger I gave you a king". [Hosea 13:9,11]
Correctly rendered statements of True God are much worth. These Bible passages
show that God once put an end to the Jews, once and for all. Question: How far does the
Bible go otherwise too?
Great rajas and the like
"Kinkering Congs their titles take." - Rev. W. Spooner (1844-1930).
[Dq 403]
 | | "Tact and blandness, how
luck-giving!" |
GOOD KINGS count. That's one old attitude. There are also bad kings, including
usurpers and tyrants. These kings make good life dwindle.
Yogis may be called kings or rajas by followers, as a token of reverence, and
fear does not necessarily go into it. We find "great king", or maharaja, as one of these
tokens of esteem. We don't think we should go deeper into that, but adjust ourselves to
the fact that there are many and great cultural differences in the world still.
Better a bare foot than none at all (American proverb).
|
Due to their upbringing, enculturation, some adhere to bland-looking title
fervour, but others think differently. And others again don't bother very much. And still
others appear to have room for leeways, at least in public. It often comes in handy.
Guessing little and fearing hanky-pankies all the more, we may not have any overt, good
reason to look down on the Indian title Maharaja - great raja. Tact and blandness are for
encounters when our customs may get halfway offended by trying ceremonialism and so on.
Well, we don't have to consider great titles as notorious bad omens.
Still, it could help a lot to leaf through 1 Samuel 8 and consider what
came out of the kings of Israel if not very long-lasting and great-looking ruin. Apart
from that, to be considered a king without visible land, or of wilting land, or even one
of a smouldered dynasty that God publicly forewarned against - we don't know how lucky
that is.
Look to John Lackland and Jesus. John Lackland did not get famous and was not
thought of as benevolent. He did not mask his deals masterly. Also, from the day Jesus
was hailed as king on a colt, he got real harassment and was executed as a blaspheming
one.
There is an element of reciprocality in many cases. The greater
the bigwig over others tries to be, the lesser is the reciprocal, alloted parts of the
majority: There is that danger. It is one of the halmmarks of sects and perhaps also
cults. Another and stubbornly upheld mechanism is that of vicarious
aggrandisements that may be set to roll on: The higher the topdog, the less and
more vicarious or more rudimentary the inherent self-esteem and self-perpetuated
satisfaction of main followers could get. In the long run they could need to feel worthy
through bigwigs the identify with or solidify through a whole lot. Good football players
may not always do for that - it isn't much insane to want to compete instead. But
submissions and very good submissions can go terribly much against the inherent worth of
man, or the "I am the god" Jesus talks of. That could be it.
Kings and Avatars
As for great giants (see avatars), they come in large
numbers in Indian literature. Some are called kings, others hardly that. We think it is
wisdom - and it is bible-linked - to get mentally prepared for marring plots the
moment bosses delight in calling each other kings, divine descents (avatars) and not just
their real names in friendly ways. Interestingly, a great love may find the first name
of the loved one to be well enough. Just "guru" should be seen as better than "o
gurudeva, o demon-slayer" in this light. Genuine friendliness can be at
stake behind the curtains where title fervour has set in and works in the minds of
compensating men and women.
Here is some Hinduism-rooted evidence to mull over for those who care: [LINK]
Yet we might stick to solid and polite manners, and for obvious reasons. It
helps general, jolly encounters, and doesn't trample down soundness.
 | |
Krishna
|
The LORD
What could be behind the term "the Lord" in the very old biblical context?
Presumably "I am" or "I am what I’m becoming" - something like that. This is the
elementary meaning of Yahweh. It’s the most holy name of the biblical God. The term's
basic feature doesn't go into otherness, into what the Jewish philosopher Dr. Martin
Buber calls you - let's say youness. The core of Yahweh in Jewish mysticism lies deep in
the central instance.
God said,
"I AM I AM". This is what you're to say to dive well
deep inside: "I'M", over and over"
God also said,
"Say, "The Lord (is within me)"
This is my name forever, the name to be remembered".
Notes can enlarge a bit: I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE isn't as easy for
delving.
Now, the Hebrew for this "Lord" sounds like and may be derived from the Hebrew
for I'M. - Compare Exodus 3:14-15:
It depends on your disposition, how much you welcome godman-kings and other notables. It
may not have occurred to you they're status beggars of a sort.
Psychoanalytically estimated, if your self-esteem is sound, you
may find "I'm myself" to be fair enough. I mean, you don't have to flaunt your way on and
up by lots of intriguing titles with a backside - I find this mature attitude healthful,
and in assonance with the correct LORD-insight in the Old Testament.
Those who compensate, on the other hand, often seek to prop themselves up, one
way or other. Very often, but not always, the one who brags and swaggers in the open, may
suffer from too little elementary self-esteem. But it's not as simple as that. He
could also be a crook and out for money. Let's remember that if we meet saviour figures
that seems to have overt desires for lots of rigmarole - it may glide further down into
pretences.
In such cases we may suspect much, but it may not be very fit or fair to vent
more than very little if it, because it should be wise to give the benefit of
doubt to ourselves as well as the other - even if he's to be regularly
worshipped.
Much worship may run deeper than claiming to be treated as a mere majesty. The
portent could be more sinister, or not so. The question is whether and how far you are
made better by your encounters and doings. Another question is whether God Within likes
what you are occupied with. (#3.3)
Notes
[1] Good books by Dr. Eric Berne - eminent psychiatrist of North America -
What do you say after you say hello? (Bantam) and "Games people play
(Penguin) shouldn't be ignored when browsing other good TA books, such as the eminent
Choosing success by Dorothy Jongeward and Philip Sayer. Dr. Berne's outlook most
often help, in our opinion.
[2] Kriyananda (J. Donald Walthers), originator of Ananda Church of Self-Realization
and community - In the Greek epic, the Odyssey by Homer, the crew of Odyssey is
turned into a herd of swine by "gambit magic" from the hands of Circe in the great work of art by Homer, the Odyssey.
[3] (a) Rumble-Mumble Goosegg (Cf. the fairy tale "Strong John") is a quite alarming
hulk, maybe a halfway titanic Dane or Norwegian - whatever. He loses respect for all
authorities, both the king and Old Nick. There is a cosy folk tale about him around. (b)
Markandeya is the hero of the Hindu book Markandeya Purana. It's a very old book.
He lives very irregularly. The book portrays him as the best, above formalised wrong and
right at times. This means, in other words, that to become hung up in given ethics can
signify "I'm outsmarted".
[4 etc.] Why live-out-ridicule the basic command: "Adam and Eve, multiply"? It's often
far from the future farm hen's willy-nilly intent to live up to the historical task and
truly honour her much too much caged parents in such a basic way.
[5] I still like Dr. Berne's "lengthened" form of psychoanalysis. Books: Pla; Bnn.
[6] Shastri, J, main ed: Siva Purana. Vols. 1-4. Banarsidass. India.
...
[7] Pla. Bnn: Moms and dads. Professional boss. Others. 2-3.
[8] "Told above": It could be by me, but you don't know, do you?
[9] See the book The ten cosmic powers. etc.
[10] Clh.
[11] Atkinson, Richard et al: Introduction to psychology, 9th ed. Harcourt,
Jivanovitch and Brace. P. 467
Works Cited
Ak: Yogananda, Pa.: Man's Eternal Quest. SRF. Los Angeles,
1975.
Ap: Mieder, Wolfgang, main ed.: A Dictionary of American Proverbs.
Paperback ed. Oxford University. New York, 1996.
Coco: Leggett, Trevor: The Complete Commentary by Sankara on the Yoga-Sutras.
Kegan Paul. New York, 1990.
Ded: Marcus, Aage: Den blaa dragen. Gyldendal. Oslo 1965.
Dq: Cohen, J. M and M. J: The New Penguin Dictionary of Quotations. Rev.
Ed. Viking. London 1992.
Evo: Lindø, Rigmor: Eventyrskolen. Cappelen. Oslo, 1988.
Gh: Hjortsø, Leo: Graeske guder og helte. 2nd ed. Politiken. Copenhagen,
1984.
Ma: Pargiter, F. tr: Markandeya Purana. Indiological Book House. Delhi,
1969.
Met: Ovid: The Metamorphoses. Translated by Mary Innes. Penguin. London,
1955.
Mmw: Ganguli, K. tr: The Mahabharata, vol. 1-12. 4th ed. Munshiram
Manoharlal. New Delhi, 1981.
Mux: Bühler, G. tr.: The Laws of Manu. Banarsidass (Reprint from Oxford
University's 1886-edition). Delhi, 1984.
On: Mata, Daya: "Only Love". Self-Realization Fellowship. Los Angeles,
1976.
Pa: Yogananda, Pa.: Autobiography of a Yogi. 11th ed. Self-Realization Fellowship
(SRF). Los Angeles, 1971. – ONLINE 1st edition
Ra: Shastri, Hari tr.: Ramayana of Valmiki, vol. 1-3. Shanti Sadan,
London, 1959.
Sh: Raghunathan, N. tr.: Srimad Bhagavatam, vol. 1-2. Vighneswara.
Madras, 1976.
Si: Shastri, J. ed.: Siva Purana, vol. 1-4. Banarsidass. Delhi,
1969.
Sl: Prabhavananda, sw. tr.: The Wisdom of God. Capricorn/Putnam. New
York, 1968.
Su: Venkatesananda, sw. tr.: The Supreme Yoga. Yoga Vasistha. 3rd ed.
Chiltern Yoga Trust. Freemantle, Australia, 1984.
Tåg: Woodroffe, Sir John tr.: Tantra of the Great Liberation (Mahanirvana
Tantra). Dover. New York, 1972.
Via: Nikhilananda,
sw.: Vivekananda. The Yogas and Other Works. Rev ed. Ramakrishna-Vivekananda. New
York, 1953.
Viom: Jolly, Julius tr.: The Institutes of Vishnu. Banarsidass. Delhi,
1965.
Vip: Dutt, Manmatha: Vishnupuranam. 2nd ed. Chowkhamba. Varanasi,
1972.
Wa: Nikhilananda, sw. tr.: The Bhagavad Gita. Ramakrishna-Vivekananda.
New York, 1952.
Wy: Tuxen, Poul tr.: Bhagavadgita. Herrens Ord. Gyldendal. Copenhagen,
1962.
Xmd: Radhakrishnan, S. ed.: The Cultural
Heritage of India, vol. 4. Rev 2nd ed. Ramakrishna Institute. Calcutta,
1956.
Yolt: Johnston, Clive tr.: The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Stuart and
Watkins. London, 1968.
Yv: Venkatesananda, sw. tr.: The Concise Yoga Vasistha. State University
of New York. Albany, 1984.
CLICK on 'Literature' for the references of about 2000 works.
ANNOTATIONS: Acronym letters in square brackets in the text refer to works. Click on
'Literature' above for examples. Page references are put right after reference letters.
The abbreviation cf. means "compare". [MORE].
SEARCH THE SITE: Click on the rose in the upper left column for site
searches, access to dictionaries, and further.
REFER to the page by its 'location' address (above).
PILOTING: Some pictures and texts on top of the pages are clickable, to ease
navigation. [MORE]
|
4 
1 
6 
Krishna" means "black", "blue" even "dark brown". Professors Dimmitt and van
Buitenen explain him as "black", but there are other options. [Clh 101; Viom 1] 
In
between the charming killing expert helps servants of his
HOW IS "Lord Killer"? In the old books that Professors van Buitenen and
Dimmitt render from, he's of a double nature, in part presented as a heroic king. He's
marked by trickery, deceit, and cold-blooded subterfuges. He arranges the demise of his
own family, allowing its members to annihilate each other. [Cf. Clh 101, 105, 104,
102]
SIMPLE people in rustic settings regard him with awe and love. He coldly tricks
others into giant self-destruction. [Clh 103.105]
AT LAST he assumes the mantle of manhood; he kidnaps and takes 18.000 wives into
his harem. [Clh 104]
"If Buddha pops up and disturbs your inner diving (contemplation), take your sword and cleave him in two." There are many variants. "When you meet the Buddha, you kill the Buddha. When you meet Bodhidharma, you kill Bodhidharma." [Check]
HERE'S a true story. A concerned mother once visited Albert Einstein to get his
counsel on how to help her son become really good in maths. Exactly what was she to read
for him to help him evolve into a prominent scientist?
The reasons why classic folk tales may be good for men are simple: We learn to
align through many of them. And we may also learn to think our own thoughts by studying
enigmas, and folklore has many. Some are found in folk tales, others in good proverbs,
and so on. It can be good for man to puzzle. But not all the time. Practical handling is
vitally important too . . .
