Enlightenment in the New Testament

This post is somewhat related to this post here. Still it stands on its own.

Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God. - Of the Kingdom of Heaven too.

There is no such place.

He says so himself.

          - “The kingdom of God will not come with an eyes observation. - Nor will they say [- oh] here [it is] or [- oh] there [it is] for the kingdom of God is within yourselves.”.

Luke 17:20-21.

Matthew 11:27 says:

(...) “None knows the Son apart from the Father and none knows the Father apart from the Son and he to whom the Son would wish to reveal to”.

He who knows the Father is he who has arrived at the Kingdom of God. - Or the Kingdom of Heaven.

So to speak.

- The expression is a manner of relating to what is known in Eastern paths as enlightenment. - Saying one has arrived at the kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven is a way of saying one has arrived at what elsewhere is related to as Buddhahood. - Knowing the Father is nothing else but knowing yourself. - Jesus was referring to that which is known in the school of “Zen” as “Satori” as arriving at the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. This is from Kalo but It seems quite clear any master who has come to it could equally affirm the fact.

- This is what this post is about. - In the Lord's Prayer (not quoted here) in particular asking for the Father's Kingdom to come (- in the second verse of the prayer) is about this. - Kalo relates to this somewhere. It is very clear.
- Subsequently I will bring various quotes off the Bible relating to the matter. - It is most clear that this is not always the meaning, - the expressions are very often used in a way where obviously this is not the meaning intended, - while as well else than this Jesus clearly and obviously was not intending for the meaning related to here in this post to be particularly or generally understood by those hearing his words or those hearing or reading them in any near future. - It is not like in Eastern paths. - Whatever the reason. - I have somewhat related to this in an earlier post.
- Here are the quotes:

Luke 16:16:

“The law and the prophets [are] till John; since then the Kingdom of God is proclaimed good news, and every one doth press into it”.

Matthew 11:11-13:

“Verily I say to you, there hath not risen, among those born of women, a greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. And, from the days of John the Baptist till now, the Kingdom of the Heaven doth suffer violence, and violent men do take it by force, for all the prophets and the law till John did prophesy”.

Matthew 19:16-24:

“And lo, one having come near, said to him, ‘Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have life age-during?’ And he said to him, ‘Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God; but if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands.’ He saith to him, ‘What kind?’ And Jesus said, ‘Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and mother, and, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ The young man saith to him, ‘All these did I keep from my youth; what yet do I lack?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If thou dost will to be perfect, go away, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.’ And the young man, having heard the word, went away sorrowful, for he had many possessions; and Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Verily I say to you, that hardly shall a rich man enter into the Kingdom of the Heaven; and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.’”.

Mark 10:17-25:

“And as he is going forth into the way, one having run and having kneeled to him, was questioning him, ‘Good teacher, what may I do, that life age-during I may inherit?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God; the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Thou mayest not defraud, Honour thy father and mother.’ And he answering said to him, ‘Teacher, all these did I keep from my youth.’ And Jesus having looked upon him, did love him, and said to him, ‘One thing thou dost lack; go away, whatever thou hast -- sell, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, be following me, having taken up the cross.’ And he -- gloomy at the word -- went away sorrowing, for he was having many possessions. And Jesus having looked round, saith to his disciples, ‘How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the Kingdom of God!’ And the disciples were astonished at his words, and Jesus again answering saith to them, ‘Children, how hard is it to those trusting on the riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel through the eye of the needle to enter, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.’”.

Luke 18:18-25:

“And a certain ruler questioned him, saying, `Good teacher, what having done -- shall I inherit life age-during?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good, except One -- God; the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.’ And he said, ‘All these I did keep from my youth;’ and having heard these things, Jesus said to him, ‘Yet one thing to thee is lacking; all things -- as many as thou hast -- sell, and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, be following me;’ and he, having heard these things, became very sorrowful, for he was exceeding rich. And Jesus having seen him become very sorrowful, said, ‘How hardly shall those having riches enter into the Kingdom of God! for it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to enter, than for a rich man into the Kingdom of God to enter.’”.

Matthew 7:21:

“Not every one who is saying to me Lord, lord, shall come into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who is doing the will of my Father in Heaven”.

Matthew 23:13:

“Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven before men, for ye do not go in, nor those going in do ye suffer to enter.”.

Mark 4:30-32:

“And he said, ‘To what may we liken the Kingdom of God, or in what simile may we compare it? As a grain of mustard, which, whenever it may be sown on the earth, is less than any of the seeds that are on the earth; and whenever it may be sown, it cometh up, and doth become greater than any of the herbs, and doth make great branches, so that under its shade the fowls of the heaven are able to rest.'”.

Luke 13:18-19:

“And he said, ‘To what is the Kingdom of God like? And to what shall I liken it? It is like to a grain of mustard, which a man having taken, did cast into his garden, and it increased, and came to a great tree, and the fowls of the heavens did rest in its branches.’”.

Mark 4:26-28:

“And he said, ‘Thus is the Kingdom of God: as if a man may cast the seed on the earth, and may sleep, and may rise night and day, and the seed spring up and grow, he hath not known how; for of itself doth the earth bear fruit, first a blade, afterwards an ear, afterwards full corn in the ear’”.

- See also verses 21-22 in the same context.
- Also compare to Kodo Sawaki Roshi saying that there is no way not to become a Buddha. - The allegory he is giving is of the night trains in Japan which carry you along even when you are sleeping.

Matthew 13:45-46:

(...) “The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a man, a merchant, seeking goodly pearls, who having found one pearl of great price, having gone away, hath sold all, as much as he had, and bought it.”.

Matthew 13:44:

(...) “The Kingdom of Heaven is like to treasure hid in the field, which a man having found did hide, and from his joy goeth, and all, as much as he hath, he selleth, and buyeth that field”.

Mark 12:28-34:

“And one of the scribes having come near, having heard them disputing, knowing that he answered them well, questioned him, ‘Which is the first command of all?’ and Jesus answered him -- ‘The first of all the commands [is], Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God [is] one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all of thy soul, and with all thine mentality, and with of all thy wishfulness -- this [is] the first command; and the second [is] like [it], this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; -- greater than these there is no other command.’ And the scribe said to him, ‘Well, Teacher, in truth thou hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He; and to love Him with all of the heart, and with all of the mentality, and with all of the soul, and with all of the endeavouring, and to love one's neighbour as one's self, is more than all the whole burnt-offerings and the sacrifices.’ And Jesus, having seen him that he answered with wisdom, said to him, ‘Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God;’ and no one any more durst question him.”.

Luke 13:20-21:

“And again he said, `To what shall I liken the Kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman, having taken, did hide in three measures of meal, till that all was leavened.’”.

Matthew 13:33:

“Another simile spake he to them: ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is like to leaven, which a woman having taken, hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.’”.

Mark 10:35-40:

“And there come near to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying, ‘Teacher, we wish that whatever we may ask for ourselves, thou mayest do for us;’ and he said to them, ‘What do ye wish me to do for you?’ and they said to him, ‘Grant to us that, one on thy right hand and one on thy left, we may sit in thy glory;’ and Jesus said to them, ‘Ye have not known what ye ask; are ye able to drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized with -- to be baptized?’ And they said to him, ‘We are able;’ and Jesus said to them, ‘Of the cup indeed that I drink of, ye shall drink, and with the baptism that I am baptized with, ye shall be baptized; but to sit on my right and on my left, is not mine to give, but -- to those for whom it hath been prepared.’”.

Matthew 20:20-23:

“Then came near to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee, with her sons, bowing and asking something from him, and he said to her, ‘What wilt thou?’ She saith to him, ‘Say, that they may sit -- these my two sons -- one on thy right hand, and one on the left, in thy Kingdom.’ And Jesus answering said, ‘Ye have not known what ye ask for yourselves; are ye able to drink of the cup that I am about to drink? and with the baptism that I am baptized with, to be baptized?’ They say to him, ‘We are able.’ And he saith to them, ‘Of my cup indeed ye shall drink, and with the baptism that I am baptized with ye shall be baptized; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but -- to those for whom it hath been prepared by my Father.’”.

Mark 10:13-16:

“And they were bringing to him children, that he might touch them, and the disciples were rebuking those bringing them, and Jesus having seen, was much displeased, and he said to them, ‘Suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; verily I say to you, whoever may not receive the Kingdom of God, as a child -- he may not enter into it;’ and having taken them in his arms, having put [his] hands upon them, he was blessing them.”.

Luke 18:15-17:

“And they were bringing near also the babes, that he may touch them, and the disciples having seen did rebuke them, and Jesus having called them near, said, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; verily I say to you, Whoever may not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, may not enter into it.’”.

Matthew 19:13-15:

“Then were brought near to him children that he might put hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Suffer the children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven;’ and having laid on them [his] hands, he departed thence.”.

Matthew 18:1-14:

“At that hour came the disciples near to Jesus, saying, ‘Who, now, is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven?’ And Jesus having called near a child, did set him in the midst of them, and said, ‘Verily I say to you, if ye may not be turned and become as the children, ye may not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; whoever then may humble himself as this child, he is the greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. ‘And he who may receive one such child in my name, doth receive me, and whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged upon his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea. ‘Wo to the world from the stumbling-blocks! For there is a necessity for the stumbling-blocks to come, but wo to that man through whom the stumbling-block doth come! ‘And if thy hand or thy foot doth cause thee to stumble, cut them off and cast from thee; it is good for thee to enter into the life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast to the fire the age-during. ‘And if thine eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee; it is good for thee one-eyed to enter into the life, rather than having two eyes to be cast to the gehenna of the fire. ‘Beware! -- Ye may not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in the heavens do always behold the face of my Father in Heaven, for the Son of Man did come to save the lost. ‘What think ye? If a man may have an hundred sheep, and there may go astray one of them, doth he not -- having left the ninety-nine, having gone on the mountains -- seek that which is gone astray? And if it may come to pass that he doth find it, verily I say to you, that he doth rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray; so it is not will in presence of your Father in Heaven, that one of these little ones may perish.”.

I here used the Young Literal Translation. The first two quotes I translated myself. I usually translate myself Bible quotes here but this was clearly too much work. I don't know how good is the Young translation, or how well it delivers what is present behind the words of those who wrote the Gospels. Generally I recall relating to the Old Testament no translation seemed good to me. - Jewish translations seemed better than others, I thought because made by people actually able to speak Hebrew as a living language rather than scholars relying on dictionaries and written matter, - but I am not sure about this. You can see in King I 21:19 where the Hebrew word is “inherited” almost none of the translations gives this word. - Also for “murdered” [there] many give “kill”, - while the Hebrew words are clear and explicit. - As for things here, - in this post, - I don't know which translation is best or if there is any that is good. It seemed to me the Amplified Bible and the Message were better than others but this is of no thorough reading or anything close to it. - So it could most certainly be wrong. - Therefore I did not want to choose any translation in the links I supplied here but you can choose any one you like in the window which opens. - Luke 9:27 I did not include within the quotes above though the meaning of the Kingdom of God there is clearly that related to here in this post.

Since Young gives “the reign of God” instead of “the Kingdom of God” and “the reign of the heavens” rather than “the Kingdom of Heaven” I changed this everywhere. I might guess this has to do with the Greek translation of Hebrew or Aramic words while Young clings to the Greek ignoring the source. - I changed somewhat elsewhere too. - Me not being a native English speaker certainly was and is a barrier to being able to choose a translation. But as I said, - I am not even sure there is a good one at all. - So far about this.

- While writing this post I wrote another blog page which obviously has to do with the post I linked at the beginning. - Also the point about which this post is appears in this other post linked in the beginning too. - I do not ague about it. [Here]

One most clear thing relating to the translations again is that none of them of course is aware of the fact. The fact about which this is, of course, - that is.

If you want to be convinced go and ask. But you need to know who to ask, - whether you take it for granted or not. - Only one who is “there” will do, - and those are no doubt rare, - very rare, - and in our weird time they are not so widely acknowledged as those who have “arrived” at what nothing will match.

As for my self I see no doubt.


So far.

Nobility vs. External Sensitivity

Buddhism is a religion of wisdom. Christianity is a religion of love. I am not interested in love generally. Some people are interested in love, altruism, morals, and possibly in things like grace or compassion. Some people are interested in truth and essence. Some people have an internal tendency and some people have an external tendency. - Obviously balance is necessary or at least useful and it may be natural for different abilities to complete each other. At the same time different people find different things appealing and have different qualifications they might follow in a natural way.

- My tendency has never been relating to the social facet. But this is not what the issue here is.

- It has been said that planets reincarnate like humans. Not just like humans but they generally incarnate. It has been said that in the last previous incarnation of our planet wisdom has developed. That its development has been completed there. On our present Earth love is to be developed. - It seems it still has a long way to go.

- In relation to this, Christianity is viewed, by some, who do seem to have a point in their ideas, - and that too may be an understatement, - as having an advantage over Buddhism. Kalo says in one of his books, about enlightenment, - “by means of the redemption it attains it is capable of attaining love and becoming its very self”. It seems to me only an enlightened could understand his words here. But in general his idea is that the phenomenon he is relating to only occurs in Christianity.

However, - as I said, - I find other things interesting. - In Buddhism, - absence of good and bad is revealed. - In Christianity it has no mentioning, - it is not emphasized, never it seems. - What makes you see one thing as better than another? Happiness is nothing. What is left then? An existence of an ability may be better than its absence. But here too, - it may be viewed as having no difference, - where one is not better than the other. I don’t think this ability, - to view this phenomenon of emptiness of any quality of goodness or its contrast, - is equally gained in Christianity.

- Certainly not in the same inherent manner. Acquiring this, not merely as an ability to be able to witness and be able to say it is so, - but as an inherent grasp going down to your most natural and spontaneous sight, - is a thing I would certainly like to gain. - It is not worthless. - Having been able to inherently and fully incorporate this understanding into your mind and being, - your action is different. - While in Christianity love is developed, - external sensitivity is valued and considered, - a person having been able to gain the virtue I am referring to here would act in a more refined manner, - more noble, - while still acting, still doing, - his natural behaviour would be freer of unwise concerns - his understanding relating to the absence of goodness and badness would naturally make his action more harmonious, more elegant, no doubt, - and this elegance is not devoid of value, as I tried to refer. I don’t know if it balances out love in its value, - but it is certainly more interesting for me, more appealing. No doubt more beautiful, but this is not necessarily the point to judge by. So far.

- - Anthroposophy - --

I have mentioned Steiner several times. - I first heard of Anthroposophy in 1990. - I was then investigating - so to speak, - various paths - after having already started practicing “Zen” about five years earlier, - in order to choose the one that would assumably be the best for me. It is not that I had any trouble with “Zen”. But I left the university some time earlier and wanted to dedicate my life to the path, - so I had the thought of examining which way would be the best. [for me, that is]

- Then amongst other possibilities I came to hear of Anthroposophy and of Rudolf Steiner. - I wouldn’t call Anthroposophy a “way” at all. - A “way”, as I’d see it, - is or would be one which would lead to or arrive at enlightenment, - or rather, perhaps more accurately, - pass through it. The custom in the house of Master Dogen may be not to use the word, - but I do need to here.

- Anthroposophy, as presented - rather, - leads to initiation. It is not the same. The main point I wanted to relate to, here, is, perhaps, - that in all of Rudolf Steiner’s truly quite endless written books and given lectures - what is quite clearly the most significant phenomenon ever existing in the universe, - namely “enlightenment”, - as it is most commonly referred to, - is altogether and completely apparently absent. - It is as if he has never heard of it. - It is not comprehensible. How could it be? - He seems to be of so much knowledge, - so much that this phenomenon too of him being so knowledgeable does occur to a person as an unusual thing not normally encountered, - of an enormous variety of phenomena existing in this physical world and most extensively elsewhere in other spheres too, - even if in actuality quite clearly wrong at certain points.^* - But within all of his so extensive references to perhaps almost anything you can think of, (and not little of what you would not necessarily think of as a practical fact) just the main point, - as it seems, - is never there. - Anthroposophists, - I get the impression, - are not at all aware in general of its existence. That is while in other paths, - such as Yoga or “Zen” or DAT - it might be said to be just the central point, - though of course those who are so fortunate as to arrive at it are very few.

- Not being aware of it would mean too, of course, - not being aware of its absence within Steiner’s references and descriptions as referred to here.

   [- Here a certain note may be inevitable, - though at the same time it may apparently seem so obvious its necessity would be severely questionable.

   - In Steiner’s perhaps-most-known book - “Knowledge of the higher worlds and its attainment” - (- “Wie Erlangt Man Erkenntnisse der Hoeheren Welten?”) in part II there, - “the stages of initiation” - the second of these [stages] is referred to as “enlightenment”.

   I recall coming across it earlier as “illumination”. I do not remember when. Obviously these are just two translations of the same German word I do not know. I initially read the book in Hebrew where also it would be the same word. - One reason which made me rewrite this post is coming across it as “enlightenment” rather than “illumination” on the Rudolf Steiner Archive site after having already written the post at first. - I then just related to the issue (of this note here) in one last sentence at the end of the post.

   - I don’t know where I might have seen it as “illumination” plus I don’t think it is of real importance here. Though as that it seemed more clear to me that Steiner never meant to refer here to the phenomenon I was referring to.

   - However, - either way, - this does not change the situation regarding this point I was referring to: - the fact I came across it as “illumination” is altogether meaningless but still - I do not see any doubt or any room for doubt that Steiner never had any intention to imply for this to be the central aim of other paths as referred to above and as again indicated below. It could not be that he had any intention - when writing about this stage to initiation in this book mentioned above, - to mean that this - which he apparently happened to call by the same name, - is as well the same thing I am writing with regard to here, and which is mostly known these days in the occident too as “enlightenment”.

   - We ought to remember too, that, at the time the book was written, Yoga or “Zen” or Buddhism in general have not yet appeared in America or Europe as they have only several decades later, and that the word referred to, - therefore - was not yet known as it is today in its main meaning, - and this would mean that at the time the book had been written the thought of the possibility of this dual meaning would not necessarily occur.

   - However, - even disregarding what I said here just now about what may (or may not) have been the intention in the use of the word (whatever it is in German) as brought initially by Rudolf Steiner in his book, (and one might guess elsewhere too) it does seem practically as obvious as possible that this-to-which-he-is-referring could never in any way be the phenomenon I was questioning about the-absence-of within his guidance and presentation-of-reality.

   - I do hope this will not be in need of argumentation.
   - Clearly, - the two are not even close.

   - This is why I said at the beginning this whole note here may be in practice altogether unnecessary. - But I am not an Anthroposophist and I do not live or abide in Anthroposophic circles or meet Anthroposophists normally or regularly in my everyday life, - so I have no direct knowledge of the actual situation regarding the issue: - As I said, it is practically quite unclear to me whether all I’m saying here would be considered so obvious in a way which would make this long note here nothing but a silly and unnecessary inconfident addition to the main point, - or - whether - on the other hand, - readers among Anthroposophists might not even find it so easy accept what I am saying. I will not argue. I do hate to bring up all so-well-known references to what the thing is and how absolute and ineffable it is, - while as-far-as-I-recall Steiner is referring to some ability of projecting occult light onto objects in order for one to be able to see them.

   - Obviously overlooking this point of this remark added here would deny all meaning of the whole piece written here. Assuming there has been a point in the first place and I wasn’t trying to clarify what has never been unclear anyway to you or other readers here.

   Either way.]

- As I said prior to this whole long note above here, - the question here is how could it be? - I never came across anything similar to an explanation. - Shlomo Kalo says Steiner is wrong. I don’t doubt that. - I happened to relate to that here, in a blog comment somewhere. (- Hebrew only, - both the blog and the comment there) But even if so, - it still does not eliminate the obscurity of the fact I was questioning about. (What I am saying regarding what Kalo says is mainly off things he has written or said to me personally. I have never been a member of the school he established, (- “דע"ת” in Hebrew, - written “DAT” in English) I was not among his students, - but I did meet him several times (Oct ’90, Feb ’94, June ’96, Feb 2001) and have been corresponding with him over the mail over a period. I never came across an explicit reference to Anthroposophy in his books (though there are many of them I did not read) though at one place his reference to “esoteric intellectuals” is clearly speaking of Anthroposophists. (He there denies Steiner’s assertion that man had to fall) One point he finds significant is that Jesus was enlightened since birth, - which Steiner of course could never mention if he never makes any reference to the phenomenon of enlightenment at all. - But Kalo never referred to this point of the absence of this phenomenon within Steiner’s teaching as pointed here. (- Not that I came across, anyway, - that is) - See footnote as well.^†)

As for the next issue - from here through the four paragraphs beginning with the current one here, - I am saying before I continue, - in case you dislike a point added there, or possibly doubt it, - or are unhappy with it or find it troublesome in some way, - than you could just ignore it. - It could be done without and I don’t want it to become an interference to the main issue as already clarified.

- That which is known as “enlightenment” is what Buddhism leads to, - as other paths. The quality of what may be referred to as “Buddhahood” is that of being enlightened. - Jesus was referring to it as “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of Heaven”. There is no such place as “the kingdom of God”. It refers to a state of one who attained Buddhahood.^‡ Yoga of course leads to it too and observes it as its explicit aim. It is quite clear that Jesus never meant to be very clear about this at the time. - Still in Luke 17:20-21 you could find his words - “the kingdom of God will not come with the observation of eyes. - Nor will they say here-it-is here or there-it-is there for the kingdom of God is within yourselves.”.^§ - Obviously, - the fact of these expressions expressing what they do is not yet known within the Christian churches today. It is Kalo who says they mean what they do and I am relying on him saying what I do, though I am quite certain anyone who has come to the same achievement (just the one the-absence-of-in-the-references-of-Steiner is discussed here) would or could affirm this point as well. (It is not something Kalo just happens to say somewhere but a rather solid reference within his teaching)

- Not so long ago I came across this lecture of Steiner having to do with the Lord’s Prayer. It is clear from it that he was not aware of what the words “your kingdom” there do mean. - I am mentioning this of course because they are referring to just the central missing point I was talking about, - the request in the prayer asking for the kingdom to come is for the arrival at it.

- As I said, if it is this particular last statement about Rudolf Steiner being wrong you observe as an obstacle or you severely-disagree-with in a way which could interfere with any chance of making any comment answering my main query presented here in this post, - (- that is in case one does have any intention of that, - of course) - than just put it aside. You could just forget this issue here. - Beside that it may be particularly very difficult to support the issue, I could just address one to Kalo’s books, - but most of these are in Hebrew, not many have been translated. Also I don’t particularly remember where does he speak of the issue, these are not things I read recently, - though generally it ought to be repeated continuously various times there. (- You can find another reference to who Kalo himself is here, he was of course not widely known as Steiner is today)

- Now at the bottom line of this post, - if anyone (reading this that is) could actually refer to the question in question, - could let me know or explain why or how is it that Rudolf Steiner apparently^** never mentions or relates to the phenomenon I referred to known-as-“enlightenment”-in-eastern-paths, -^†† in spite of his so-extensive references to almost anything you can think about, - (and particularly of course within that to spiritual development as a central issue) in his books he has written and lectures he has given, - than do let me know.

- I do not have a way of contacting me through e-mail at the blog, - no “contact me” option, - but do write at the comments section. - I would perhaps temporarily add a “contact me” had it been necessary, but I’ll be sending e-mail messages to many who might be able to comment so they’ll have the e-mail address anyway. Also I prefer to have the comments (assuming there will be any) openly here at the blog. Besides traffic here is so low I do not have much reason to expect other potential commentators else than those mentioned. One other note, - the post was initially written on a file as you can find here. The post as it was before being rewritten here (comments can only be posted here under the post, not there) and the original as written initially for that here. The way it is on PDF is better generally but the difference is not supposed to be significant. (I can’t just copy it as it is into the blog, the editing features are not the same, not anything you can do on a “Word” you can also do here, but it does not mean changing the text)
___________________

^* (Steiner himself too does states the possibility of wrongness, I think)
^† - Kalo never really made it very clear what it is that Steiner is wrong about. - To me that is. - It is not that he avoided the question, - but generally issues discussed in meetings or our correspondence were those having to do with me, naturally, - and the matter referred to here was not generally a central one in this manner, - so the concrete question did not come up. (- Also in answering letters he normally seemed to be of the habit of writing very short answers, always one page, rather small, in a somewhat large handwriting usually) He died on the 30^th of August, 2014.
^‡ Steiner, as far as I have come across, uses the word Buddha in a different sense or meaning, - it is not wrong or untrue but it may be said to be the secondary meaning of the word, - the primary or first one is as I referred.
^§ (- You might also see Matthew 20:20-23)
^** - I have never read all of his writings or lecturing, - needless to say perhaps, - far from that as you might guess, - but the fact is quite clear and seems to be very easily noticeable.
^†† - Btw, - Kalo’s teaching is not of the eastern paths, - though relying on continuous meditation as in some of these, - but is Christian oriented.

Following correspondence on the comments section and elsewhere too I am adding this remark:

The issue is not an issue of East and West and not of an Eastern path or attitude versus one of the West. It is not an issue of Christianity or Buddhism or of Christianity or Eastern religions. It is far more fundamental and prior to these.

- The issue is of whether there is an original reality prior to all higher worlds. - Jesus called this reality “the Father”, - in Hindu it was known as Brahman, also as Ishvara. Lao Tse called it Tao. All these are just different names for the same thing. It is known as the absolute, the reality or the self. - It is of course prior to this world too. Sometimes it may be said it is beyond all, - but I think “prior” is more exact.

- It cannot be known through clairvoyance. - It can only be known directly. Through your own being - as far as I understand, - not through any senses. - Nothing apart from it exists at all, - all worlds are said to be delusion. - Which means we are nothing other than it. - One who knows it is said to be enlightened. - One who knows it knows one’s self as it. - In Buddhism such a person is called a Buddha, but there were of course those who were enlightened before the birth of the Buddha we know. - As for example Krishna and Patanjali, and Abraham too. - Those who know this reality say it cannot be described. It is inaccessible to thought. As far as I understand: - not just to thought not being free of the brain, - but to thought at all. - It is said a person whose highest (seventh) chakra is active is an enlightened one, - but in Anthroposophy it seems only the other six chakras (or lotus flowers) are related too and developed. - I could only find one sentence in all of Steiner’s books and lectures relating to it, in a lecture not even having been translated to English. All he is saying is it cannot be “readily” spoken of.

- So one who is enlightened is one who knows this original reality, and who knows all else to be delusion. Namely is one who knows oneself. It is possible that an initiate will not be such a person. Though it seems to me in most cases one will be. It is an ultimate achievement, - there is not supposed to be anything beyond it. - Though in the external aspect there will be still differences between those who are enlightened - of course. - One who has “arrived” at it does not have independent existence any more, or an “I”, - but is then just the reality itself, - which we are all said to be nothing else than ever.


- Written and added on June 30 2025. There will be another related post on July 7^th. So far.

I don’t understand

I travelled to Japan first in 1991. On April 6^th I first arrived at Narita airport. - The season in Ryutaku-ji begins on March 15^th but the first sesshin only begins on April 18, or rather on the evening before - of the 17^th. - I went through three flights: - Israel to Greece, Greece to Thailand, and Thailand to Japan. I guess since not so many flights go through Israel, being such a small country. - When you get to Japan, assuming you have no earlier special arrangements, - you can get an entry permission for 90 days.

- In travelling through Greece, I had to change airports. There were two airports in Athens, the flight from Israel arrived in one, and the continuing flight was leaving from the other one. - As far as I recall I went from one to the other on foot. - The first incident was then. A person, just someone I don’t know, was walking straight toward me singing the Beatles song “Hey Jude”. He was kind of singing it at me. Nothing offensive, as far as I got it. I never spoke to him or responded in any way, I just went on. I guess he might have noticed I was from Israel, these things can sometimes be identified, - and therefore sang as he did.

- Before going to Japan I was very indecisive as for which path to pick.

I started sitting in ’85. But then - around 1990-1991 - I had the wish to then dedicate my life to the path, - to the way, - and therefore wanted to choose that which is best. [for me of course]

- I got very indecisive as for two paths: - “Zen”, - as the name Master Dogen tells us not to use, (though the reasoning for it seems to relate to the time and place then, and is not equally in place now, as far as I understand) and that which is called “DAT” (Initials in Hebrew, though it is interesting that the word you get in Hebrew is the Hebrew word for the Sanskrit “Prajna” - pronounced da-at - as two syllables - and not “dat”-  which is the Hebrew word for religion (spelled differently too)) taught and created by Shlomo Kalo, who died not so long ago on August 30^th, 2014.

It does seem really silly looking back, - but at the time I was severely troubled. At last I made my decision and went to Japan. As I said above.

I got my entry permit for 90 days, arrived at the Ryutaku-ji on April 7^th, - and stayed there thereafter. - It is possible to get 90 days twice, (It might depend on your nationality, this is the way it was for me) without leaving Japan. - As my 90 days were coming near the end, - the roshi had one of the monks drive me to the immigration office (which was quite far, it was a 2-3 hours drive as far as I recall) to renew it. We passed through a lawyer on the way, but he and the monk spoke in Japanese, which I could not understand, but it was for the purpose of it, as far as I understand. - We got to the office - handed in whichever papers we did, - and got what we came for.

As we were about to drive off, - when we were already in the car, either already started or not, there was a car with a few kids a few meters ahead of us, not blocking the way, just a bit to the side. - These kids were singing - or just started to sing - the same song, - “Hey Jude” again. What does it mean? I don’t know. I happened to be a monk who likes the Beatles. He knew the song. I told him about the first incident. As for people who think this whole shit is meaningless, - they might have not read it in the first place. I am not interested in arguing with these. But as for those who understand this need to have some meaning, - they are in place reading it. I won’t go further. I am leaving it at that. Time has a habit of telling, but it is not obliged. So far.

Kalo’s Observation

Kalo says in one of his books (somewhere around 1988-1990) that bent teeth, teeth that are not strait, are an outcome of a faulted emotional-mental state or situation. - He somewhere mocks at the “bravery” of dentists aiming to redeem the situation by physical means. The reason I am writing this is that many, if not everyone, - can observe things and examine the question by themselves.

I have noticed examples of this more than once, and I generally might guess there might be some sort of correlation between the particular faults in one’s emotional structure (Kalo uses the word “array”, - in Hebrew of course) and the particular way in which the teeth grow not in the way or direction they should. - I never tried to particularly fit anything regarding and it doesn’t seem easy. - Still, the main thing is the main point: - The very existence of the principle. I cannot see any chance contemporary (so called) “science” would be able to come up with the way or mechanism by which this occurs. - For anyone sufficiently serious in the field of spirit it is - as it seems - inevitably clear that these “sciences” aiming at investigating the human soul, - while denying its existence, - are practically a joke. It is amazing the trust they receive from many, from a lot of people, from the majority of humanity I guess. - Anyway we could hope for nothing there, - regarding our issue. - Again, - I am not concerned - here in this post, - with the issue of which particular bent in which direction and in what point or area would be the result of which particular irregularity or wrongness in a person’s emotional array or system. - I am concerned with the hope that by personal observation readers of these-words-here will come to verify personally the phenomenon I am relating to really exists.

- First you might see one person where the link might seem reasonable or evident. - Then another person. And then another. - You can not calculate this or try to create some organized system by which the phenomenon could be examined free of the particular abilities of the observer. - You need to see. Wisdom, today, is being neglected to a great deal. Many can not tell the difference between wisdom and intelligence. Amazing perhaps. - Certain elements or factors within contemporary society implement the demand for “objective” testing. - This means as to be accepted things need to be able to be checked by some sort of mechanical system where wisdom will not be in need. If one person is able to see it and another is not it is not objective. Fuck the fools, but this is the way the world is going. - Anyway, - again, - back to our issue: - I’m saying you might first notice the phenomenon, still very questionable, - somewhere, and then notice it again, and then again. With time, gradually, (in most cases, as it seems to me) you can come to notice the general link as a continuous and ever present thing proving its own existence - though not in a very loud voice, - through people you see everywhere in general. Of course the phenomenon would not lack apparent exceptions, and would not be equally evident everywhere. - Where the things would be lighter, less impressive, less considerable, - where the matter would be of distortions that are closer to the common way, - the principle would not be as evident or noticeable as when dealing with worse irregularities. - But there is no hurry. There is no rush. - In Japan, as I recall, - the weight of the higher classes weighs on poor guys in the lower classes, due to the hierarchy of society, - and you can see that sometimes in the way peoples teeth are bent. I recall that, but it has been over 20 years since I have last been to Japan. I don’t know if anything might have changed.

So far for that. The main thing is for you to see. There is no need to go anywhere. - It is just about what you see anyway. You don’t need to conduct an experiment. And not every particular person will inevitably be able to prove to himself (or herself) what I am saying. Though I guess most will, it seems quite easy. As I said, - this is what brought me to write this here, - had it not been convincing (in that way) I would not see a point in writing it. Once the phenomenon is noticed it would point somewhere further, - but that is beyond me here. Let things be. The truth has a quality or a nature of being revealed, as it seems, - though in these strange days we seem to manage to get thing wrong in ways apparently unpredictable. Let this be all.

+

Regarding the time, -

(I wrote this on December 28^th, I thought of the idea the day before, - I’ll schedule the post)

Let this be a New Year post.

30.8.14 - Kalo Died

Shlomo Kalo, whom I mentioned in earlier posts, died on Saturday.

This is just s few links, for whoever is interested. (I only found one in English, of what I thought worthy of listing; - and this too is only on updating this post (Sep 4^th))

http://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/literature/1.2420033 (Hebrew)
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4565685,00.html (Hebrew)
http://www.maariv.co.il/news/new.aspx?pn6Vq=L&0r9VQ=GEGMG (Hebrew)
http://e.walla.co.il/?w=/273/2780831 (Hebrew)
http://www.mako.co.il/music-news/local/Article-7e7c6f8b5d52841006.htm (Hebrew)
http://glz.co.il/1140-49229-HE/Galatz.aspx (Hebrew)
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-gospel-according-to-shlomo-kalo/ (English)

My “Time” post is still to be put on some day. - It is not an easy one and I am currently not working on it at all. The circumstances are not enabling and I apparently must just wait.

Kalo on “Zen” II

- I translated the text in the last post rather meticulously sentence by sentence. - Unlike my habit is, - I did not attempt to fundamentally relate to the spirit of the whole unit to be translated, and try to reflect it in the translation to be done.

I did not think I could observe things from the point of view of enlightenment, and so I did not think I could grasp the fine intention of the passage and construct my translation in a living manner in its light.

Therefore I translated as I did. - I tried to remain as loyal as possible to the meaning of each sentence without relying on my own self confidence with regard to the understanding of the text.

However I had some second thoughts. - Generally this isn’t the best way to translate a spiritual text. - Definitely. - So I still don’t think I made a mistake, - and I knew earlier it could be translated more beautifully, but I thought I would present also a somewhat freer translation, not one that is as carful as the one in the last (main) post.


- So here it is, - in case you find interest: -

- “The truth, in the end, is eternally none but one and all who dwell in it know it. Words alone – which are ever incapable of presenting and describing this truth – are the source of the distortions and misrepresentations. Indeed, the measure of distortion is minimal as the speech is serving great teachers. On the other hand, the measure of distortion related anyway to all use of words, might arrive at enormous and hindering measures none the like. And that is about those men [and women] who innocently practice ‘Zen’, analyzing and interpreting its ways and purpose and sometimes – but translate a ‘Zen’ story from one language to another – without having attained Enlightenment. (- ‘Satory’, - as to avoid any misunderstanding) These men are as pseudo bakers unable to tell flour from waste and never the less – they dare and knead a bread of gravel and serve it to the hungry audience. The result – the consequence – severe damage to both the servers and the recipients alike.”.

Kalo on “Zen”

I’ve mentioned Shlomo Kalo on two earlier posts. (the 2nd & the 5th)

- He is an Israeli Teacher. Not a Buddhist teacher or a “Zen” teacher. - Though clearly an enlightened one. If you doubt the fact this whole post might generally lose its meaning. - Though again, - I do not intend to argue for it, nor do I much know how to had I wanted to.

He is said to have seen the light in December of ’69. - I could just mention that I have never heard anyone doubting him. (though if you do say he is not enlightened this would clearly mean he’s just a fraud)

He’s translated several texts, mainly through the ’70s. - One of which is a collection of 128 “Zen”-talks (as he calls them) entitled “‘Zen’ and ‘Zen’-Sages”. (- Among other thing he’s translated the Patanjali [Yoga] Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, Shankara’s Viveka-Chudamani, - and more recently the Gospel of Thomas. - All to Hebrew, - of course; - and most-at-least not from the original language.)

In his “Zen” book, - (the cover of my own unsaved copy of which you can see on your left) a translation of 128 “Zen” stories as I just said earlier, - he ends the preface he has written for the book as follows:

- “The truth, eventually, is none but one for ever and each who dwells in it knows it. The words only – which are ever incapable of describing this truth – are the source of the distortions and the deformations. Indeed, the measure of distortion is minimal as the speech serves great teachers. On the other hand, the measure of distortion related anyway to all use of words, might arrive at enormous and hindering measures none the like. And what these things are about are those men [and women] who innocently occupy themselves with ‘Zen’, analyzing and interpreting its ways and purpose and sometimes – but translate a ‘Zen’ story from one language to another – without having attained (- lit. ‘received’, - or - more literally, - ‘won’, - as the expression in Hebrew is) Enlightenment. These men are like pseudo bakers unable to tell flour from waste and in spite of that – they dare and knead a bread of gravel and serve it to the hungry audience. The result – severe damage to the servers and the recipients as one.”.

I will just leave these words as they are. I don’t wish to interpret and it doesn’t seem necessary.

- Though here is the text as it appears in the original book:

There is a quote from Master Dogen I might want to relate to in another post. - Though it won’t be that soon. - It will be at least a few posts before that. - A quote which might be related to the above matter. - I intend to call that post “The Master’s Intention”, but time will tell.


Either way, - so far that’s it for this time.

- Obladi, oblada, - life goes on, - bro; -

- La-la, how the life goes on. -

-                                                                                                                                                        -