When Martin Luther translated The Bible into German,
so that the "common people" would know what it said,
he did not just put it in a different language he "codified"
the "common tongue" or the "local dialect" of what ever
the local language really was (a form of slang) and he
effectively gave the local people a "written language"
that did not exist previous to his writing it. Meister Eckhart
is given credit for the formulation of the actual German
language circa 1300 A.D. but "his" writing was of "his own"
personal communication style, a "notes to himself" kind
of thing, that was later translated into more recognizable
text.
There was a VERY similar situation with the evolution
of the King James version of The Bible written in English
where John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and
theologian (later 1300's) was England's version of Meister Eckhart.
So much so that the two stories are sometimes thought
to be one and the same and may actually have come
into being as the result of the process of some highly
skilled French knight/warriors who had "carried" the
ancient wisdom forward from a "pre-Catholic/pre-Jewish"
wisdom tradition that Martin Luther's benefactor Prince
Frederick of Saxony was privy to. This is separate from
but very similar to the Latin biblical texts but referenced
Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek as well.
However, this entire process of "serving the people"
to better understand the power and wisdom of God
had "lessened" (watered down or "dumbed down")
the original expression of the ancient wisdom keepers
so much so that it is unrecognizable and virtually
un-re-translatable back into the original language(s).
Hence, there has been some "retro-active writing"
or "reverse engineering" of our present-day Bible.
This is VERY confusing for people who want to try to
"authenticate" the "facts" of The Bible. This is impossible
since the "wisdom" of The Bible was "meant" to enable
the "seeker" to evolve "their own" relationship to God
or to their own inner awareness. Since this wisdom was
"dumbed down" people effectively "lost" their awareness
of "themselves" because the "story-oriented" parables,
fables, and metaphors "across several languages"
simply do not relate to today's understanding of
psychology and philosophical paradigms in general.
The exact same situation happened with many other
religious texts being "dumbed down" and translated
(or mistranslated) into the English language.
So, to speak of "unnecessary complexity" is to ask your
teacher to dumb down wisdom that it is impossible to
simplify because you "have to use your head" in order
to understand it in the first place. "You" need to "convert"
what someone else says into "your own inner language"
such that you can effectively "translate" that wisdom to
"each" specific individual person that you "Know" can
understand what you are saying and "adjust" how you
explain something to them according to "specific feedback"
from that specific person.
In other words, profound wisdom can not be communicated
to more than one person at a time because one person
needs to insure that the other person is understanding
"each step" of the communication in order to "build upon"
each "layer" of subtlety getting increasingly more subtle
as the communication continues.
"Standardized" language does not serve the purpose of
facilitating the communication of profound wisdom. So,
to "complain" about a particular person's expression of
their "unique" genius is like saying that you do not like
oranges while staring at an apple tree unwilling to take
a bite.
Make sense?
love,
- pi -
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted. |