In the beginning was the Logos

What I find fascinating about "Logos", a term that may mean "Word", is that we can talk about it all day. :) It takes us into the areas of music, religion, science, nature, history, art...I could talk all day...

(And listen, too!)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Thomas said:
As near as I can figure, the emrods were hemhorroids (sp) because the got them in their "secret parts".

Perhaps Thomas knows for sure.

Why? Who told you, come on, who was it! Have my kids been posting again? ... And stop laughing, all of you, it's no laughing matter, believe me! ;)

Thomas
Click to expand...

Prober said:
No, No!:eek: I thought maybe you would know in a scholarly (sp) way.:)
Click to expand...
Alright, Prober, {are you really trying to live up to your moniker with this question?} :D
Have fun probing away with my research into this subject: :p

what are translated as "emerods" are associated with two different Hebrew words:

Strong's #02914 t@chor {tekh-ore} From root meaning "to burn"
1) tumours, haemorrhoids, piles

Strong's #06076 `ophel {o'-fel} From root meaning "to lift up, swell, be lifted up"
1) hill, mound, fort, stronghold, Ophel
2) tumour, hemorrhoid
(Further investigation into the fort, stronghold, definition points towards a hill surrounded and fortified by a separate wall to the east of Mount Zion, which leads me to believe that these burning swellings were internal. Ouch!)​

See also Deuteronomy 28:27
 
Seattlegal, remember that huge Smiley I wanted? Make that a Huge Grin.

Good observation, BTW. :D

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
Seattlegal, remember that huge Smiley I wanted? Make that a Huge Grin.

Good observation, BTW. :D

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...

567.gif


36_1_19.gif
 
seattlegal said:
Alright, Prober, {are you really trying to live up to your moniker with this question?} :D
Click to expand...

I see no reason to poke fun at me unless I've prodded you to do so.:D

Perhaps this Hebrew word is actually the origin of the English word.
 
I'm just ITCHING to put this discussion WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE.

What do 'roids have to do with fortifications anyhoo ? Of course lifting and piling up big rocks can put a strain on anyone's internal systems.

flow....:D
 
Really, really wanted to get this back up to the top...

Thomas said:
This is one of those avenues that becomes really interesting for someone who really doesn't know enough about what he's talking about ... but let me try and make myself intelligible...

'Number' is an intellectual concept that has no existence in material reality – you cannot show me 'two' – you can show me 2 apples, etc, you can show me quantities of things, but take the things away and the numbers alter, and when the last thing is gone, the number has gone too ... so numbers in that sense are abstract ...

So 'number' defines and determines not 'things' but the relationships of things, in the same way that things themselves are defined according to every other thing – thus 'big', 'red', 'heavy', 'thin', 'translucent', 'flexible' etc., are all relative terms ... even the thing itself: 'that is an apple' is defined by virtue of qualities that other fruits do not have, whereas 'that is a red fruit' is indeterminate...

What I'm flailing at here, is its all about relation ... and right relation is justice ... (mercy is allowance when that relation goes out of kilter)... and the Principle of Right Relation is the Logos, the ontological source of all relation ordered according to its own essence and nature ...

Oh, good grief ... an epiphanic moment ...

Anaximander said:
"Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and
recompense For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time."

Anaximander spoke of Apeiron (The Boundless) which the Fathers saw as The Father, and the Arche (Principle) whom they see as The Son (and is spoken both in the Septuagint Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1)

So God the Father is the Arche Anarchos (Principle without Principle), whilst the Son is Arche, (Principle), and thus of the same essence as the Father...

"For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20

"Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you."
6:33

"That being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we may serve him without fear: In holiness and justice before him, all our days."
Luke 1:74-75

"And of justice: because I go to the Father: and you shall see me no longer."
16:10

"For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith."
Romans 1:17

"But now, without the law, the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets."
3:21

The above verse, along with many others, allude to 'justice' expressing, in Hebraic terms, everything that 'Logos' expresses in Greek.

I've got to go away, pen and paper, work this out ...

... thanks all ... later ...

Thomas
Click to expand...

(bolding by me for emphasis)

I understand (I think) how G-d has to have justice, but how does the Logos get to be the facilitator of mercy?

Does it have anything to do with His creative power? or dominion? or something?

Please continue...
 
Hi Prober -

I understand (I think) how G-d has to have justice, but how does the Logos get to be the facilitator of mercy?

It is axiomatic to Christian doctrine that Creation is an absolutely free act on God's part; that God as Apeiron, 'The Boundless', is under no necessity nor compunction to create – that God creates because He so chooses, and in so choosing is not greater nor lesser; nothing is added to or taken away from God in so doing.

So in creating something out of nothing, creatio ex nihilo, God wills existence, and that this existence is 'ordered' is beyond argument – and this is the activity of the Logos, or Arche of God, the Principle, the First Cause or Prime Mover of philosophy.

Now, when we look at Logos in the JudeoChristian tradition as Wisdom, then God wills creation, and what is willed exists according to His wisdom...

... but this is the 'how' of it, not the 'why' of it – God did not create because He is wise, nor because He is just or merciful, but because He chooses to.

If there were justice alone, then the Kosmos would be a mechanism and God would be subject to His own creation, but God is free, and His freedom exists within His creation as it does outside of it, and a particular expression of this freedom is shown by God's desire to communicate with his creature, not 'according to necessity' as Anaximander would have it, but according to His will – "I will be with thee" as Scripture says on numerous occasions – and because God is free, He us under no obligation to seek recompense for injustice if He so chooses ... this is mercy.

Because the Arche is of the same essence as the Apeiron, then the Logos must express this active dimension of mercy, as it does justice ... according to the will of Aperion ... thus the Son is one with the Father in all things.

Thomas
 
Hi everybody!

I have two questions.

Why do people here use the spelling G-d instead of God?

The term Logos is a term used extensively in Theosophical literature. Is it also used in Christian literature? (Do Christians distinguish God and Logos?)

(Oh dear. That's three questions....)
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Hi everybody!

I have two questions.

Why do people here use the spelling G-d instead of God?

The term Logos is a term used extensively in Theosophical literature. Is it also used in Christian literature? (Do Christians distinguish God and Logos?)

(Oh dear. That's three questions....)
Click to expand...
On questions 2 and 3, I refer you back to page one of this thread, and the Gospel of John, chapter 1. :)
 
Seattlegal,

Thanks for that clarification. In Theosophy, then, Logos has a different definition. Logos stands for the Father-Mother-Son Trinity, which we also describe as Spirit-Matter-Universe.

It is also helpful to point out another Christian-Theosophical difference. The terms Darkness, Spirit, and Light appear in Genesis 1. Theosophy equates these terms as

Darkness = Absolute (The word Theosophists use instead of God)

Spirit = Father

Light = Son

Water = Matter = Mother

I have made reference in another thread regarding the (temporary) periodicity (appearing, disappearing, and reappearing) of The Son. The Bible says, "Let there be Light", which is when we record the appearance of The Son in this universe. Before Light appeared, there was only Darkness, Spirit, and Water (Matter).

It seems to me that modern Christianity equates God with Spirit. Theosophy does not. (The Bible also does not seem to, in that it mentions "the Spirit of God". This infers the two concepts are not identical.)

InLove,

You said,

"...I find fascinating about 'Logos', a term that may mean 'Word'...."

In Theosophy, we use the words Sound, Silence, Voice, and Word. We use these meanings:

Silence = Father

Sound = Mother

Voice = Mother

Word = Son

Like you, I have wondered if we need to have these confusing terms. I think it was done in order to explain complicated cosmic principles to uneducated people centuries ago. Perhaps using these terms makes it easier. (I think it makes it more confusing.)

By the way, we contend that The Son is the same as the Buddhist concept of Avalokiteshvara. It is important to note the connection between Sound and the Buddhist concept of Avalokiteshvara.

“... some eastern sholars maintain that the original term was Avalokita-svara, literally the looked-at-sound....” (Prem and Ashish, Man the Measure of all Things, p. 204)

(Kwan-Yin — called The Goddess of Mercy in English and Kannon in Japanese — is an important deity in Buddhism. She is commonly depicted as a statue of a woman with a piled-high hairdo, wearing a hooded white robe, and pouring water from a vase. Thousands of temples have been built in her honor, and hundreds of thousands of people pray to Kwan-Yin everyday. It is my opinion that Buddhists pray to Kwan-Yin in the same way, and for the same purpose, as Catholics pray to the Blesssed Virgin Mary.)

(This also shows a commonality between Buddhism and the Bible. It is the Theosophical contention, then, that Buddhism and Christianity are talking about the same thing.)

Therefore, InLove, in response to your Logos/Word observation, I see Word (The Christian "Son") as referring to only one aspect of the triplicate Logos.
 
Hi Nick –

Just to clarify a couple of points:
It seems to me that modern Christianity equates God with Spirit. Theosophy does not. (The Bible also does not seem to, in that it mentions "the Spirit of God". This infers the two concepts are not identical.)

Spirit in Hebrew is ruach which is breath, or wind. So in this sense one could as easily read the text to say "the Breath of God", which if read this way would, I think, clear up a misunderstanding of Scripture.

It is my opinion that Buddhists pray to Kwan-Yin in the same way, and for the same purpose, as Catholics pray to the Blesssed Virgin Mary.

Many people find devotion to the Blessed Virgin a confusing concept, and without a full cognizance of the subtle nuances of Catholic theology it's understandable.

We do not regard the Theotokos as a God, nor as a divine manifestation, but someone human, who was called by God and by her 'yes' became the exemplar of faith in action. If she is Queen of Heaven, it is because of the role she played in the plan of salvation. As Catholics believe in 'the communion of saints' as very much alive, we talk to them, as we do angels, and ask their help and intercession, in the same way we would ask a family member, friend or neighbour ... it is a distinction which is subtle, and many miss ... but we are one body in Him.

The Scriptural validation of the devotion can be found in the text of the Wedding at Cana – John chapter 2.

Thomas
 
Interesting connections here Thomas & Nick. Interesting Thomas that you've equated the Logos with mercy and you Nick with Avalokiteshvara who is considered the Buddhist bodhisattva of compassion. Kuan Yin means "she who hears the cries of the world." Thomas could certainly expound on this better than me, but "Sophia," which meant wisdom in Greek, was particularly associated with and/or seen as synonymous with Logos in the Eastern Christian world giving a "feminine" face to Logos (though Avalokiteshvara is depicted as male in Tibetan Buddhism). At any rate, though, the feminine is mythically related to nurturance, and the "receptive holding space" which enables new forms to emerge. Looks as if compassion, love , etc. is central to understanding Logos. For Buddhists, compassion is on a par with wisdom-they refer to it as 2 wings of the same bird. compassion is both a practice to spiritually evolve as well as a barometer of how far they have to go. What we cannot have compassion for reflects where more growth in spiritual understanding is needed. Nick, while some Buddhists no doubt "worship" such entities, typically Buddhist practice is more 1 of aspiration and emulation. For example in vajrayana it is common practice to visualize oneself in the form of various bodhisattvas, etc with the intent being that by so doing one is able to discover those same qualities emergent within oneself. In other words, we seek to become or do the work of Kuan Yin, to become 1 of her thousand arms seeking to answer the cries of the world. We cry out for mercy and eventually see we have both received it and become another of its expressions in this world.:) earl
 
Earl,

You said,

'Interesting ... you've equated the Logos with ... Avalokiteshvara who is considered the Buddhist bodhisattva of compassion. Kuan Yin means 'she who hears the cries of the world.' "

--> The idea that Avalokiteshvara and Kwan-Yin are equal to the Logos is a key Theosophical teaching. (Well, technically, Kwan-Yin is the female aspect of Avalokiteshvara, and is only one aspect of Avalokiteshvara, according to Theosophy.)

I have noticed different variations on the origin of the world Avalokiteshvara. Here is the best I have found.

“ ... some eastern scholars maintain that the original term was Avalokita-svara, literally the looked-at-sound.... [There is no way] the past participle Avalokita (+ Iswara or + svara) [can] mean he who looks down or the down-looking: it has to be looked, seen, viewed, or observed.”(Prem and Ashish, Quest Books, p. 204)

--> I agree with this writer, that Avalokiteshvara is a passive, not active word, meaning "looked at" not "looking at". I do not see this word taking on the meaning of "she who hears the cries of the world."

"...'Sophia,' which meant wisdom in Greek, was particularly associated with and/or seen as synonymous with Logos in the Eastern Christian world giving a 'feminine' face to Logos (though Avalokiteshvara is depicted as male in Tibetan Buddhism)."

--> I have seen the name Kwan-Shi-Yin refer to the male aspect of Avalokiteshvara, and Kwan-Yin refer to the female aspect of Avalokiteshvara.

"...while some Buddhists no doubt 'worship' such entities, typically Buddhist practice is more 1 of aspiration and emulation."

--> I suspect there are more Purelanders in the world than any other type of Buddhist. If so, their "worship" would be described as typical. (You may wish to describe Pureland activity as more of an emulating than worshipping, but I do not know. When I visit Pureland temples, what I see seems to be more described as worship. You may disagree.) But I have the highest respect for Vajrayana (and Pureland) practices of visualization, etc. Visualizing Kwan-Yin and emulating her leads us to a form of compassion. I believe that Buddhism can be summarized in one word — compassion. The more compassionate we become, the more we are fufilling the purpose of Buddhism.
 
Earl,

The software is now refusing to let me edit the above post, so let me add this one last thought.

"Kwan-Yin" means "she who hears the cries of the world"? Which Chinese characters are used for Kwan-Yin? The same as the Japanese Kannon?

kannon-japanese-kanji-and-hiragana-spellings.gif


If these are the Chinese characters for Kwan-Yin, I think "looked-at-sound" fits better here too.

---

For everyone else out there, here is a link to a quick look at Kwan-Yin

THE LEGEND OF MIAO-SHAN KUAN YIN, GUAN YIN
 
Hi Nick –

Theosophy also uses the term Breath (Actually, "Great Breath"), and distinguishes Breath from God.

Interesting. Judaism and Christianity do not draw quite the same distinction.

There are operative 'distinctions' within the breath as such however, and Scripture uses different terms ruach, nefesh, neshamah, shekinah ... but that's a whole other study.

Thomas
 
Hi Earl –

Interesting Thomas that you've equated the Logos with mercy and you Nick with Avalokiteshvara who is considered the Buddhist bodhisattva of compassion. Kuan Yin means "she who hears the cries of the world."

There is an interesting correlate here with devotion to the Blessed Virgin, mentioned elsewhere, and which shows particularly in a prayer called the Salve Regina:

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this vale of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

V./ Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
R./ that we may be worthy of the promises of Christ.

Note that this is a petition of intercession, to the Blessed Virgin as advocate, not as the object of devotion in herself, but, as in all Marian prayers, the object is her Son.

+++

but "Sophia," which meant wisdom in Greek, was particularly associated with and/or seen as synonymous with Logos in the Eastern Christian world giving a "feminine" face to Logos (though Avalokiteshvara is depicted as male in Tibetan Buddhism).

This is a very active area of theological inquiry, especially in the Russian Orthodox tradition which has come alive in the wake of the fall of communism.

The biblical roots of Sophia go back to the personification of Wisdom (chokmah in Hebrew) in the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom appears as Woman Wisdom or Lady Wisdom or Dame Wisdom. She at times decries the folly and heedlessness of the human race (Prov. 1:20-33); but also appears as a woman crying out at the city gates (alluding to the practice of the Prophets), inviting humans to enjoy the treasures she offers (Prov. 8) ... thus she is linked to the Hebraic Prophetic Tradition – or rather it is the voice of Wisdom who speaks through the Prophets, so whilst clearly distinct from The Lord, Wisdom is nonetheless the form in which The Lord approaches man.

Wisdom 'mediates' between The Lord and man, playing before The Lord as His delight, and playing in the inhabited world and finding her own delight in humans (Prov. 8:30-31). She has a special role in creation, and she makes statements that, properly speaking, only The Lord can make: "Whoever finds me finds life" (Prov. 8:35).

In Christian Tradition the distinction is not quite so clear-cut – whilst the Logos of God is undeniably the Wisdom of God, the Active Principle of the Logos is the Holy Spirit 'which proceeds from the Father and the Son' ... so whilst you are right in saying Sophia presents a 'feminine' face of the Son, She also and perhaps more accurately signifies the feminine activity of the Holy Spirit.

At any rate, though, the feminine is mythically related to nurturance, and the "receptive holding space" which enables new forms to emerge.

This nurturing and bringing to perfection is precisely the activity of the Holy Spirit, 'the Shy One' as I heard one theologian refer to the Third Person of the Trinity. More significantly, perhaps, the human, specifically the soul, is always feminine to the Divine, which is masculine, in Christian mysticism.

Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top