The Lords Prayer - Meaning lost in translation...?

[Jeff]

In another thread, I raised the concept that Jesus was also a Dzogchen Master. A member quoted the Lord's Prayer as a counter argument, implying that it bore no resemblance to Buddhism.

 

A great challenge in the Christian tradition is that the original words were delivered to mostly uneducated Jews where much has been lost in language meaning and translation. Also. in the "institutionalizing" of certain texts and using Jesus's words to support the agenda of building Roman empire.

 

 

The Aramaic Language has (like the Hebrew and Arabic) different levels of meaning. The words are organized and defined by a poetical system where different meanings of every word are possible. So, every line of the Lords Prayer could be translated into English in many different versions. As an example of how the intent of a passage can be changed, here is a translation (copied from another site) of the Lord's Prayer directly translated from the ancient Aramaic language into modern English.

"This, then, is how you should pray:" ~Jesus, Matt 6:9

Abwûn
"Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes,

d'bwaschmâja

who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.

 

Nethkâdasch schmach

May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.

 

Têtê malkuthach.

Your Heavenly Domain approaches.

 

Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.

Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).

 

Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.

Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,

 

Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna

daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma)
like we let go the guilt of others.

 

Wela tachlân l'nesjuna

Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),

ela patzân min bischa.
but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.

Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,
the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.

Amên.

Sealed in trust, faith and truth.(I confirm with my entire being)

 

 

 

[MooNiNite]

very nice words of wisdom

 

i like how it refers to karma as that which "binds"

[Apech]

That's very interesting ... thank you.

 

Are you going to explain your Jesus = Dzogchen master idea?

[Jainarayan]

Wow, I knew there was a universality to the Lord's Prayer that was hidden, either intentionally or unintentionally (I suspect the former). This prayer could be said to virtually any deity.

[Jeff]

That's very interesting ... thank you.

 

Are you going to explain your Jesus = Dzogchen master idea?

 

Hi Apech,

 

Broadly speaking, my position is in showing that true "communion" is an advanced form of Dzogchen guru transmission. In both cases, "light" or a "state of knowledge" is shared. The challenge is in finding quotable support for both types of sharing to show the direct correlation. I hope to post something later this week.

 

On the broader similarity between early christianity and buddhism, I offer these words from the Secret Gospel of Mary...

 

82. Mary said, “All things exist in and with one another, and while they exist they depend on one another, but when the time of dissolution comes, all things will return to their own root and essence. What has come from above returns to the abode from which it has come, and what comes from below returns to its origin. What is in between has never existed, and will return to the Great Void.”

 

See any similarities in the words above to buddhist thought?

 

Regards,

Jeff

[rene]

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by rene

[Clarity]

So much is lost in translation from other times, places, and peoples.

 

Thanks for sharing this. It reminds me of the Sufi story "The Traveler and the Grapes".

 

"The parable that follows was originally composed by the greatest of all Sufi poets, Jalal ad-Din Rumi (d. 1273) and recounted by Idris Shah, the Grand Shaykh of Sadarna.

A Persian, a Turk, and Arab and a Greek were traveling to a distant land

when they began arguing over how to spend the single coin they posessed

among themselves. All four craved food, but the Persian wanted to spend

the coin on angur; the Turk, on uzum; the Arab, on inab; and the Greek,

on stafil. The argument became heated as each man insisted on having

what he desired.

A linguist passing by overheard their quarrel. “Give the coin to me,” he

said. “I undertake to satisfy the desires of all of you.”

Taking the coin, the linguist went to a nearby shop and bought four

small bunches of grapes. He then returned to the men and gave them each

a bunch.

“This is my angur!” cried the Persian. “But this is what I call uzum,”

replied the Turk. “You have bought me my inab,” the Arab said. “No! This

in my language is stafil.”

All of a sudden, the men realized that what each of them had desired was

in fact the same thing, only they did not know how to express themselves

to each other.

The four travelers represent humanity in its search for an inner

spiritual need it cannot define and which it expresses in different

ways. The linguist is the Sufi, who enlightens humanity to the fact that

what it seeks (its religions), though called by different names, are in

reality one identical thing. However — and this is the most important

aspect of the parable — the linguist can offer the travelers only the

grapes and nothing more. He cannot offer them wine, which is “the

essence of the fruit.” In other words, human beings cannot be given the

secret of ultimate reality, for such knowledge cannot be shared, but

must be experienced through an arduous inner journey toward

self-annihilation. As the transcendent Iranian poet, Saadi of Shiraz,

wrote,

I am a dreamer who is mute, And the people are deaf. I am unable to say,

And they are unable to hear."

Edited August 13, 2013 by Clarity

[RongzomFan]

here is a translation (copied from another site) of the Lord's Prayer directly translated from the ancient Aramaic language into modern English.

 

The original language in which the Gospels (including the Lord's prayer) were written, is Greek.

 

Not Aramaic, despite what Jesus may have spoken.

 

Since the most accurate English Bible is considered to be NASB, please revise thread using NASB.

 

Then we can evaluate your claims.

Edited August 14, 2013 by alwayson

[Apech]

The original language in which the Gospels (including the Lord's prayer) were written, is Greek.

 

Not Aramaic, despite what Jesus may have spoken.

 

Since the most accurate English Bible is considered to be NASB, please revise thread using NASB.

 

Then we can evaluate your claims.

 

 

 

7 “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. 8 So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

9 “Pray, then, in this way:

‘Our Father who is in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

10‘Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

11‘Give us this day our daily bread.

12‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

14 For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

[Apech]

BTW I posted the above for information only.

[Jeff]

 

The original language in which the Gospels (including the Lord's prayer) were written, is Greek.

 

Not Aramaic, despite what Jesus may have spoken.

 

Since the most accurate English Bible is considered to be NASB, please revise thread using NASB.

 

Then we can evaluate your claims.

From Wikipedia (but feel free to research other sources on what language Jesus spoke)...

 

"It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities."

 

Translations are always subject to differences in time, culture, language and perspective...

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

[RongzomFan]

From Wikipedia (but feel free to research other sources on what language Jesus spoke)...

 

"It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities."

 

Translations are always subject to differences in time, culture, language and perspective...

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

 

 

Jeff,

 

What don't you seem to understand?

 

Jesus may have spoken Aramaic, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the language the Gospels were written in.

 

If you want to quote Wikipedia:

 

"The consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient.^{[29][30][31][32][33]}"

[Jeff]

 

Jeff,

 

What don't you seem to understand?

 

Jesus may have spoken Aramaic, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the language the Gospels were written in.

 

 

Some early actual references on for your review...

 

"Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." (Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, c. 120 AD)

 

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1, c. 180 AD)

 

"Among the four gospels... I have learned by tradition that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language." (Origin (c. 185-254 AD), Commentary on Matthew, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4)

[Edward M]

Rudolph Steiner saw in the akashic records that Jesus indeed studied buddhism. He would have needed that level of awareness to be able to deal with what happened after his Baptism by John.

 

But I have to ask, had Buddhism even reached Tibet let alone evolved into Dzogchen when Jesus was alive? quite an important question!

 

Peace

[Apech]

Rudolph Steiner saw in the akashic records that Jesus indeed studied buddhism. He would have needed that level of awareness to be able to deal with what happened after his Baptism by John.

 

But I have to ask, had Buddhism even reached Tibet let alone evolved into Dzogchen when Jesus was alive? quite an important question!

 

Peace

 

 

Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet in the 8th century ... however there are earlier Indian practitioners.

[Edward M]

Thanks Apech, earlier buddhist or dzogchen teachers? i was under the impression dzogchen was a synthesis of Tibetan Bon and Buddhism?

 

Peace

[RongzomFan]

Thanks Apech, earlier buddhist or dzogchen teachers? i was under the impression dzogchen was a synthesis of Tibetan Bon and Buddhism?

 

Bon is just a late 14th century branch of Buddhist terma.

[Edward M]

Thanks alwayson, isn't it referring to tibetan shamanism?

 

My only point in writing/asking all this is just to say i don't see how Jesus could have been a dzogchen master, even though i believe he mastered Buddhist practice.

 

Also, thanks Jeff for Lords prayer translation... was refreshing to read

 

Peace

[Apech]

Thanks Apech, earlier buddhist or dzogchen teachers? i was under the impression dzogchen was a synthesis of Tibetan Bon and Buddhism?

 

Peace

 

Not really. There is Buddhist Dzogchen and Bon Dzogchen ... and is a lineage going back to India. I am not a Dzogchen practitioner or expert so maybe others on here could answer this more fully.

[Edward M]

Ok, thanks for that Apech, you're more knowledgable than I am on the subject, that's for sure I'll stop derailing this thread now... sorry Jeff!!

 

Peace

[Apech]

I have a strong inclination to credit the idea of a Buddhist influence on Jesus, either from travellers on the silk route or by him travelling in the 'missing years'. Mainly because his ethics are very like mahayana ethics (even though I don't think the mahayana existed then in the way it does today). What is different of course is the belief in a supreme deity and so on ... which is why I quoted the Lords Prayer in a previous thread ... because it is full of things that a buddhist could not subscribe to. I also am having trouble with specifically why Jesus would teach Dzogchen as such ... I don't see why or how that could be.

 

I am not by the way against mystical Christianity and one of my teachers years ago (now dead) was a Christian Hermeticist ... but agin I don't see what this has to do with Dzogchen.

[Edward M]

Agreed Apech, but bear in mind that The Word in aramaic refers to the creative energy, that which allows us and plants, animals etc to grow, that which powers evolution of universe etc...

 

Is similar to some shivaism schools of thought..

 

Peace

[Apech]

Agreed Apech, but bear in mind that The Word in aramaic refers to the creative energy, that which allows us and plants, animals etc to grow, that which powers evolution of universe etc...

 

Is similar to some shivaism schools of thought..

 

Peace

 

The word 'logos' also implies creative formalising power.

[Edward M]

Thanks Apech

[Cheshire Cat]

from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/02/the-original-aramaic-lords-prayer-is-none-of-the-above.html

 

The “Original Aramaic Lord’s Prayer” is None of the Above

 

After it came up on this blog a while back, I’ve wanted to return to the topic of the “Original Aramaic Lord’s Prayer.” Why? Because the thing that can be found online referred to in this way is not original, not Aramaic, not a translation, and not the Lord’s Prayer.
Let me elaborate further.

This prayer can be found online in a number of places, and stems for the most part from books like Prayers of the Cosmos: Reflections on the Original Meaning of Jesus’s Words by Neil Douglas-Klotz.

The transliteration is poor, and so anyone reading the English letters will not get a sense of what the words sound like. The transliteration is based on the Syriac version of the Lord’s Prayer. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, but it differs in some respects from Galilean and other Palestinian dialects of Aramaic, and so even to the extent that the Syriac prayer is Aramaic, it is not the original Aramaic. (Scroll to the end of the post for the text of the prayer in Syriac).

Let me go through the alleged translation of the alleged original Aramaic prayer line by line, and explain why it is not a translation of the meaning of the Aramaic into English (whether the Syriac or a reconstructed Galilean version), and thus does not deserve to be considered a form of the Lord’s Prayer.
Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes, who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.

This is not a translation of either Matthew’s or Luke’s version, much less an attempt to determine which is the more original. The likelihood that Jesus’ own uttered version of the prayer, before it was adapted for communal use by Christians as reflected in Matthew, simply began with Abba, the Aramaic word for father, is likely. There is no personal pronoun, and no sense in which Abba means “one from whom the breath of life comes.” Nor does the reference to heaven/sky – again, found in Matthew but not in Luke – translate naturally to “realms of sound, light and vibration.”

May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.
This is clearly an attempt to do something with “Hallowed be your name.” But how does name become light, and how does the expression of a desire for the name to be sanctified become something holy in the one praying? This is not a translation or even an interpretation of what is in the Syriac, Aramaic or any other version of the Lord’s Prayer.

Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
This line is not as bad as the previous ones if considered an attempt to paraphrastically explore the meaning of Matthew’s version. But since we know that the version in Matthew, “kingdom of heaven,” is his rendering of “kingdom of God,” combining the sense that it is God’s domain with the idea that it is heavenly is potentially confusing. As for the verb, the future tense has been rendered in previous lines as expressing the desire for something to happen, and so for consistency it should be rendered the same way here: “May the domain of God come.” Otherwise, it should be “The domain of God will come.”

Let Your will come true – in the universe (all that vibrates) just as on earth (that is material and dense).
The first part of this is not bad – a very literal rendering might be “Let your will be” which can carry the sense of “Let your will happen/come to pass.” Turning the heavens into a universe that vibrates and adding commentary about density to the earth is unhelpful and does not reflect an ancient understanding, which did not necessarily view the heavens as immaterial, nor do I think that people today think of the universe as immaterial. So once again, not only is this not translation, much less good translation, but it is unnecessarily confusing.

Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need, detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma) like we let go the guilt of others.
Turning the request for bread into a request for wisdom, however much the provision of manna was treated as symbolic of the giving of wisdom, takes one well beyond translation. The second part adds karma for no reason, and this is clearly the importing of an Indian concept into what is being claimed as a first century Galilean Jewish prayer.
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations), but let us be freed from that what keeps us from our true purpose.

The interpretation of temptation as having to do with superficial things and materialism, and the interpretation of evil as “what keeps us from our true purpose” is interesting and worth reflecting on, but it is not in any sense a translation of what the Aramaic words mean, but an attempt to apply the prayer to today’s very different setting. Materialism was not an issue that most of Jesus’ audience had the luxury of being tempted by.

From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act, the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.
This has almost nothing in common with the Aramaic. The closest is its rendering of the word for power in terms of “strength to act,” since strength is indeed one of the meanings of the Aramaic word found where, in the familiar English versions, the Greek is rendered “power.” But the introduction of a song as a substitute for “glory” when the Aramaic has no musical connotations is unjustified, and so too the introduction of the notion of “will” where previously the same word for kingdom was rendered (quite legitimately, if narrowly) as “domain.”

Sealed in trust, faith and truth. (I confirm with my entire being)
I am tempted to mention that “Amen” means different things in different contexts – my pastor regularly says that in a Baptist church, “Amen” means “You may be seated.” The question of what Amen means in a lexical sense is relevant, but so too is the question of how the term functioned when used even by people who were speaking languages other than Hebrew and yet still used the Hebrew term.
In short, I have no problem with anyone who happens to want to utter this prayer or finds it meaningful or spiritually useful. Just don’t mistake it for a translation of the Lord’s Prayer, much less the original Aramaic one.

 

The same applies to many of the other supposed translations of the Aramaic Lord’s Prayer that one can find online. In short, the less it looks like the Lord’s Prayer as you know it, the more likely it is to be a free paraphrase or interpretation rather than a translation. And if you want to really grasp the Lord’s Prayer as Jesus uttered it in his own language, there is only one way to get even close to doing that: learn the ancient Palestinian dialect of Aramaic.

 

Translating words from one language into another always involves some transformation of meaning. There is simply no way to fully grasp the precise meaning and nuance of anything in another language than by becoming intimately acquainted with the language and culture in question.