And the Truth. . .

. . . "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free" . . . "Truly, truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house forever; the son continues forever." John 8:31-32, 34-35

The choice is to know the truth and be free, or to sin and be a slave. It may seem obvious, but what is so good about truth and freedom, and why do we seek it, and what is so bad about sinning and slavery, and why should we avoid it? 

What is the good feels good, right, perhaps soothing? What is bad feels bad, uncomfortable, and/or perhaps . . . prickly. . .

  'Devil's Tongue', Prickly Pear(Opuntia humifusa)

Soothe is from Old English soðian (sothian)"show to be true", from, soð (soth) "true, genuine, real; just, righteous". In this respect, hearing the truth should be comforting, and hearing lies should sting. However, sometimes hearing the truth feels bad in the moment, and hearing lies can feel good as well, but lies are cold comfort, and change (from a state of imperfection to perfection) is what brings about true peace.    

Prickle is from Old English pricel "thing to prick with, goad, point". When things are prickly we tend to stay away from them. But we have to recognize them as being prickly fist. This probably only happens after some experience with being hurt or made to be uncomfortable by something prickly. I like to say that word, "prickly", its fun. Getting a hand full of cactus spines. . . not fun.

  The Torment of St. Anthony, Michaeangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni,c. 1487-1564

Stimulation (n.) is the "act of pricking or stirring to action", from Latin stimulationum (nominative stimulate) "an incitement". When we feel the sting of sin we are stimulated to avoid that sin. But sometimes its hard to stay away from sin, even so, and we pay over and over, choosing momentary pleasure and instant gratification, and we pay the price later. Perhaps we even fool ourselves saying things to ourselves like, "I won't get so stuffed that I feel sick and disgusted with myself after (insert holiday) dinner (or otherwise), or I'm not going to get so drunk that I feel deathly ill and have a massive hangover after my good friend's (or not so good friend's) wedding. . . this time. In any case, we may want to avoid the discomfort caused by the excess, but then cross the line accidentally. Nevertheless, can't this, then, cause one to try to do better the next time and to grow in maturity? 

And what is sin? Is it a particular act, or only an act which causes regret or suffering?

One word for sin in Hebrew is chataah "sin, sin offering".

Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin (chataah) is covered. . . When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. Psalm 32:1, 3

Another word for sin is shagag " to go astray, commit sin or error". So to sin in this sense is to err.

Before I was afflicted I went astray (shagag, "I sinned"), but now I obey your word. Psalm 119:67

Sin is the cause of discomfort. When actions do not cause discomfort, are they, then, sin? It seems that it is the consequence of the sin itself that produces discomfort. However, discomfort isn't always a bad thing if it stimulates one toward the good and truth. So how should we view sin? Should we be so ashamed of having sinned that we do not act because we fear sinning and, thus, we fail to learn and truly become free from sin? In the story of the prodigal son, the prodigal son goes astray and his discomfort causes him to return to his father. 

How many of my fathers hired servants have enough bread and to spare, but I perish here with hunger! Luke 15:17

In addition, ones discomfort is not always a sign of his or her own sin, for we say that Jesus was without sin, yet he suffered greatly. So it is possible to suffer the sin of the world, rather than ones own personal sin. But then, how does a person know if their discomfort is caused by their own sin? And, furthermore, can we judge another in this respect? No. It seems to come down to personal conscience. 

For when the Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law are a law unto themselves. In that they show the work of the Law is written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. Romans 2:14-16

    Jesus Cleansing the Leper - Jean-Marie Melchior Doze, 1864

And not everyone seems to learn from his or her own sin. They may feel bad, i.e., the consequence, but also feel helpless to change. They simply cannot ever seem to win a victory over their unhealthy desires which rule their lives. In this case, they are slaves to sin. Some blame the Devil. The Devil made them do it, or perhaps Satan. . . Could it be?

Satan is from Hebew satan "adversary, one who plots against another".
If only there was a way to free oneself from the clutch of this adversary; this supernatural plotter of evil and ruin.

For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do- this I keep on doing Romans. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with we. Romans 7:18-21

    Satan- The Adversary

But it is the truth that makes us free from sin. So, the truth is a cure for sin. If one has the truth he or she is not a slave to sin. Wouldn't it follow that if you are or identify as a sinner, then, you do not have the whole truth? Or, at least, you have not really heard it to the point of intimate understanding. 

In them is fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah: "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. Mt. 13:14

Maat was the ancient Egyptian concept of truth. She set order out of chaos at the moment of creation. And at death the heart of the deceased was weighed against the lightness of the feather of Maat. Those whose hearts were found to be heavier than the feather of Maat were devoured by the waiting lion / hippopotamus / crocodile demon, Ammit, meaning "devourer", "soul eater"; the "Devourer of the Dead", and "Eater of Hearts", and had to remain in the underworld apart from paradise, the Aaru, i.e., "reed" fields.

[and isn't it interesting that emet, which sounds like Ammit, means "truth" in Hebrew? So is it the truth with is ultimately the devourer of the heart?]

    Maat Wearing Feather of Truth

It would seem that living in the truth should create a certain lightness of being. True is ultimately said to be from root *deru- / *drew- "be firm, solid, steadfast", like a tree. Tree is from PIE root *drew-o-, from deru- "oak". Feathers are not strong and trees are not light. How, then, is the truth solid yet light?

Jesus was no Goliath, some argue that he was, in fact, small in stature, however, Jesus claimed to be THE truth (John 14:6). God often works in this way; showing that his chosen, whom are the greatest, appear to be the least, or the most humble.

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his hight, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7

So, the strength of the heart is not necessarily shown through outward appearance, or the flesh, not unlike the feather of Maat. The strength of truth has to do with the durability of the heart. The heart of truth is light in weight, but strong, and, maybe, also it is light, as in bright, like the light of dawn. Truth is light like the birds which fly high in the heavens with their lightness (feathers), but the truth is also very strong, like the strength of the strongest tree, in spirit; durable (deru-ble), as the mighty oak. 

And feeling discomfort is not necessarily a sign of weakness, the people of the highest purity are going to be the ones who are most sensitive to discomfort of sin. They are more finely tuned and honed into the vibration of the truth.

    The Princess and The Pea, by Chetkova

Therefore, shouldn't we, who have the truth, take confidence in the truth, having lightness of heart, and let our light shine out of the darkness like we know what we're doing, and know who we are? Own it! Show the strength of your truth, or you prove you are nothing more than a slave and the truth is not in you. . . you are still a slave. . . though Christ has already ransomed you.

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.  Romans 6:6

Maybe you'll look a little awkward at times until you get really good at it. That's OK.

I don't mind if you don't mind, 'cuz I don't shine if you don't shine.

Stuck in the Middle With You

    Castle and Sun, Paul Klee, 1928, Oil on Canvas

This painting is very interesting considering how seemingly simple it is. It reminds me of children's play building blocks. Sometimes simple things can be deceptively complex. When you consider that the artist started out with a blank canvass . . .  then he created this . . .  and darn it, it looks good! It has to do with his color choices, and sense of proportion, and placement. Try to imagine yourself sitting in the same place. What medium do you use? Which brush? What's your technique? What's your vision? What would you come up with? Would it be as interesting? Intriguing?

Intrigue in its original sense meaning "to trick, deceive, cheat," is from French intriguer, from Italian intrigare "to plot meddle; perplex, puzzle," from Latin intricare meaning "entangle, perplex, embarrass." When something is intricate (a form taken directly from Latin intricatus "entangle," from  in "in" + tricae "perplexities, hinderances, toys, tricks"), it creates interest, from Latin interesse "to concern, make a difference, be of importance," from inter "between"+ esse "to be." You have to look closer and get in it to see the detail, or solve the mystery. It spikes curiosity and makes us care. Maybe there is a puzzle or game to solve. Interest is the opposite of boredom.

    Sherlock is Bored!- Sherlock, The Great Game, Episode 1.3

God is Omnipresent, which is to be ever everywhere, from omni "all" praesense "present",  pre "before" esse/essent "to be".  God is Presence. Essence. I AM. This can be an interesting puzzle to contemplate. Exactly who and what is God? Traveling toward extremes can be exciting and interesting, however, this same endeavor can also end up leading to the opposite, i.e., boredom, ennui, or ruin, such as when the investigative genius, like Sherlock, hits a dry spell, or thinks they have solved all the mysteries. 

It is interesting, then, that God is an extreme character. Nothing is more extreme than being the Esse, the All, the One. But is God, then, alone (from all "all"+ an "one")? That would be a whole lot of alone. That is a big and fearful void in our eyes, too big, and too small, a vast abyss. Like when you think about the edge of the universe, what is just beyond it? And what is smaller than the smallest particle? … More. Infinity. Eternity. It cannot even be spoken. 

Fortunately that's none of my business. 

O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a *weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul. Psalm 131:1-2 [*in the sense of: a child who doesn't cry for milk, who has dealt with the struggle of being weaned.]

So yes, one can go too far thinking about eternity and the eternal, but really the problem comes down to a fearful simplicity, or the prospect of an eternal boredom, getting stuck in an endless monotony (from Latin monos "single, alone"+ tone) where nothing interesting happens, everything is seen, there is no complexity or mystery. That is just hellish. 

But where is the place of of interest if you can't find it by striving, and it is not at the extremes?

   The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

"Be my friends, I am all alone," he said.  

"I am all alone--all alone--all alone," answered the echo. 

"What a queer planet!" he thought. "It is altogether dry, and altogether, pointed, and altogether harsh, and forbidding. And the people have no imagination. They repeat whatever you say to them… On my planet I had a flower, she always was the first to speak…" -ch. 19

The extremes turn out to be lonely places. The mean is usually more comfortable. Not too high, not too low, not too big not too small, not too dry, not too wet . . .  just right.

Like Goldilocks.

    Goldilocks and the Three Bears

That golden spot is somewhere in-between, in the middle, at the heart of, or at the center. Maybe that's where the eyes naturally go, or you might say the place of interest to the eyes.

Center ring at a circus is the place of greatest interest. Center podium is gold, the first place winner.

Interest is what is inter + esse "be between, among, in the midst of," like the inner tree in the garden (gan "enclosure, garden" in Hebrew, from ganan "to cover, surround, defend") enclosure of Eden. It was the forbidden tree of knowledge . . .  and that is partly what made it so interesting.

but God said, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst [betawk(tavek)] of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." Genesis 3:3

In Hebrew tavek is "midst, between, inside, within, middle, among, home." The tree was in-between (inter + esse) the garden. Interesting.

    Golden Rectangle with Continuing Pattern, Golden Ratio / Mean / Section, φ = 1.61803398875...

It is also interesting that when the golden rectangle (which is an enclosed space, like a garden), which is made using the golden mean, is bisected diagonally, and the next smaller golden rectangle is likewise bisected, where they meet forms an intersection at the center, or in the midst, of an infinite spiral. Phi φ is not a rational number . . . it is magical. 

The X marks a spot, i.e., the place in the midst of the enclosure. The golden ratio is the proportion often found in nature that we find so pleasing. 

    Shell Exhibiting the Golden Spiral, Growth Factor is Phi, it is a home for an animal

The mathematical structure of nature can be intriguing and intricate. It can create organic serpentine shapes, or vast veinous labyrinths to confuse, or entertain the eye, which is pleasing, not boring, robotic or predictable. Amazing, good trick!

     a+b is to a as a is to b, Golden Ratio in the Insect World, knowhowledge.com

Not only does phi φ create interest, it allows for organic movement, flow and structural stability / balance, and that is also beautiful. However, phi is also a little dangerous, which can be interesting too. It is the divine proportion used in creation. Knowledge of the divine is in creation, the knowledge of the good / beautiful and, finally, also the knowledge of chaos / evil that must be tamed and conquered.

    Vitruvian Man, Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1490 - made in the image and likeness of God.

In ancient Egypt the concept of balance and harmony was known as ma'at / maat / mat / mayet. Ma'at is usually translated as "truth" or "that which is straight," with the idea of order, balance, and justice. It was against the feather of Ma'at that the deceased's heart was balanced during the Weighing of the Heart Ceremony in the Duat (underworld). After the ceremony, what ensued in the after-ma'at, or after the math (weighing), was either the admittance into paradise [a safe enclosure], or Ammit, i.e., the "devourer," "soul-eater" and destruction; the second death. 

    Weighing of the Heart, from The Book of the Dead, (to the right)Anubis with Feather of Ma'at in Balance, Thoth Recording, Ammit Waiting.

Ma'at was also the "mat" or stone platform / foundation, that the gods (neteru) stood upon in artwork and statuaries which was an indication of their authority. 


    Ma'at, and Hawthor seated on a foundation "ma'at"[reproduction], Tomb of Nefertari, Valley of the Queens, 19th dynasty, 1270 BC

Ma'at was the primordial foundation of stability, balance, justice, order and truth, and the foundation of the universe. In the earliest representations a raised platform / plinth was her symbol, latter she came to be represented by the ostrich feather.

    One Rendering of Ma'at in hieroglyphic Form- Platform/Foundation ma', Sickle (cut with sickle) ma, Arm (cubit measure) meh + Semicircle (bread, loaf) t ending used to indicate feminine gender + Seated Goddess with Feather of Truth (determinative)

Ma'at was considered to be the counterpart of isfet "injustice, violence, chaos". We might say Isfet is a fit, or was a worthy or fitting (from [perhaps] Middle English fit "an adversary of equal power" related to Old English fitt "conflict, struggle") opponent for Ma'at, personified as the serpent Apep (Apophis, Gk.) "Lord of Chaos" during the Middle Kingdom.

    Apep/Apepi/Aapep or Apophis(Gk), Personification of Isfet, from 21st dynasty Book of the Dead, Egyptian Museum, Cairo

The two opposite forces balanced each other. Like a hero and nemesis / archenemy / antagonist. There is never a hero without a struggle to overcome. In a certain way the hero is born from the nemesis, as truth / light is born out of chaos / darkness. But the creation of the hero is the destruction of the nemesis, as the creation of order and balance is the destruction of chaos. However evil is never entirely annihilated, although maybe eliminated (from ex "off, out" + limine "threshold." Evil is kicked out, put in its place . . . hell.

Ma'at offered a stable foundation on which to build a home in the surrounding chaos. A secure place of rest . . . but what really is it? Think about what the feather represents. Ma'at is lightness, as a feather that blows in the wind.

The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. John 3:8

The truth, the "firm" foundation of everything, is really not a solid thing, it is rather an idea or a state of being, a finesse,  from French finesse "fineness, subtlety," from Old French fin "subtle, delicate; perfected, highest quality," or maybe we could say, an achievement of the  fin "end, conclusion" of esse "being" (as in the aim, purpose, target); a certain purity (which when found within will be manifested externally as well).

The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, "Behold, here it is!" or "There!" for behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst / within you (entos "within, inside"). Luke 17:20-21

The solidity around us that we know as matter, and reality is really a lot of empty space. Think of atoms or the smallest of small most simple particles. What are they? Is there not yet another universe inside of them? It's tricky. How can they make this solid world around us that we believe to be so sure, that we perceive with our senses? We think we are really touching, seeing and hearing what is there, but it is actually just an interpretation of energy by the organ of our brains. Regardless of of exactly how un-solid reality actually is, still we are standing here made out of it. So for all practical intents and purposes we can say we do touch, see and hear what is actually outside of us. This is a balanced perspective. We don't need to deny the reality of reality, but neither should we deny the nature of reality… even if it is not entirely comfortable. 

Bodies tend toward entropy, yet the foundational building blocks remain.

    Column Base in Trajan's Forum, Rome, 113 AD, the Column is Gone but its Foundation Remains. 

So, finally, it seems to be, that the apparently irrational, magical or unreal is actually the foundation for the rational, logical and real. 

People use tricks of design like phi to make the structures pleasing, or interesting to the eye as well as for the sake of stability. Columns witch support the structure have bases or foundations, as well as does the whole building which is built upon a foundation. 

The Parthenon in Greece is a classic building which displays the use of the golden ratio. Parthenon is from Greek parthenos "maiden, virgin".  

    Parthenon, Athens, Greece, 447 BC, Temple of the Virgin

Athena was the patron goddess of Athens. The Parthenon was a temple dedicated to this virgin goddess. Virgin is from Latin virginem (genitive virgo) "maiden, unwed girl, or woman," also used as an adjective meaning "fresh, unused," as in "virgin wool." Virginem is said to be related to virga "young / green shoot, twig, switch." However, we could say that a virgin is also a "free woman," rather than simply being an "unmarried" woman, or a woman who is has not had sexual relations. This idea of "being free" would draw in a connection with vir "man, hero" in Latin, from PIE root *wi-ro- "freeman, man," *uiHro- "freeman"). Perhaps even vir + gyne ("woman" Gk.), a "freeman" who is a "woman," or vir + genesis (Latin "generation, nativity", from Greek gignesthai "to be born, from PIE *gene-/*gen- "give birth, beget")," that is, a person, "created / born" a vir "man" (a human being) in the state of freedom (before or without being married). In the ancient  world a woman was her own man, in this sense, until she was married and became the property of her husband.

According to Greek myth, Cecrops [Κέκροψ], the first king of Athens, invented marriage as a punishment for women. Before marriage existed, said the myth, women were the political equals of men, but the institution of marriage imposed limits on their power. Ancient History & Civilization, Erenow.net

And it seems reasonable that the origin of vir as meaning "man" could also be related to virga as well [as virgin]. In that both virgins and freemen are people with potential or vitality like green (young) shoots, and "green" in Latin is viridis. The vir "man" being a "shoot of the earth / ground", or what sprouted or grew out of the mud, i.e., ha'adam  / man / mankind. 

This gives new meaning to the term "ever virgin." 

Not only can a woman be a "freeman" in an unmarried state / virgin, a woman can also be virago, a word meaning "man-like or heroic woman, of extraordinary stature, strength, courage," from Latin virago "female warrior, heroine, amazon," from vir "man." This seems to fit the image of Athena the virtuous virgin.

    Athena Giustiniani, Roman Copy of a Greek Statue of Pallas Athena late 5th to early 4th century B.C., Vatican Museums

Pallas Athena, the patron of Athens was goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, just warfare, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, craft, and skill. 

Virtue also comes from Latin vir "man," from Latin virtutem "moral strength, high character, goodness; manliness; valor, bravery, courage (in war), excellence, worth," and can be said of all men (humans), both men (males) and women (females). Virtue is the mean between the vices of excess. It is a balance between the extremes, and freedom from or victory (from victor "conquerer") over vice (from vitium "defect, offense, blemish, imperfection"). Athena is sometimes shown holding the goddess Nike "victory" in the palm of her hand.

    Pallas Athena, Gustav Klimt, 1898, Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien, Vienna

Victory over vice is achieved through balance. When things are out of balance  compensation, or payment must be made in order to restore balance and restore a state of grace, from Latin gratia "favor, esteem, regard; pleasing quality, good will, gratitude". 

Interest (%) as in "a payment made on top of the value of something for its use, or because it was borrowed", is from interest (n.) as being "a legal claim or right; concern; benefit, advantage", ultimately from a form of the Latin interesse "to concern, make a difference, be of importance," from inter "between" + esse "to be." How is this kind of interest % "being between"?

To charge interest is for the advantage or benefit of the lender (interested party) and not necessarily just about just compensation. It does seem that it can be "just" to pay a certain fee for borrowing a persons goods, because they were without those goods for a time, and also, maybe needed to invest time and effort in the lending of their money or goods. But how much compensation is fair compensation? And is a person always put out because of the lending, or is it the case that sometimes the lending doesn't cost the lender any inconvenience? It seems to be the case that a person can take advantage of another person's bad luck for their own advantage.

Advantage, is from Latin ab "from"+ ante "before, in front of, against".

    "This is a very interesting situation!"- George Bailey, It's a Wonderful Life, 1946

Interest payments may benefit, as in "advantage, profit" a lender in a way that turns out to be anything but equitable, and is more like using another human being in an unbalanced or vicious way(or, as in the case above, for the benefit of a harmless prank).

That is why it is called usury (from Latin usura "payment for the use of money, interest", literally "a usage, use, enjoyment", from usus, from uti (utilize, utility). So usury is a usage fee, but it can also turn out to be a using of another's hard luck or disadvantage in an unjust manner. Just because a person is desperate and willing to agree to pay a really high percentage of interest does not make it right. They may have no other option (or they may even just be stupid, or undisciplined). However, to charge a small amount (usage charge) for business doesn't seem to be inequitable, and seems legitimate, balanced, and not to be unjust usury, or abuse, from ab "away" + uti "make use of, profit by, take advantage of, enjoy, apply, consume" of the person who is paying back the fee. 

    Death and the Miser,  Jan Provost, 1515-1521 

In Hebrew neshek is "interest, usury", from nashak "bite; lend upon usury".

You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money, interest on victuals, interest upon anything that is lent for interest. To a foreigner you may lend upon interest… Deut. 23:19-20

There are a lot of strange rules and regulations in the Pentateuch which seem harsh and outdated now. Why would it be fine to "bite" a foreigner? Perhaps it could be that the people first had to learn how it is right to treat a brother(someone whom you care about, and whom you see as being like you) before they could understand how it is right to treat anyone and everyone, since we are ALL brothers, ALL neighbors, and ALL God's children. There actually are not any "foreigners" and therefore no one should be "bitten" or taken advantage of.

Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands? And he said, "The one who showed compassion to him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same." Luke 10:36-37 NASB 

And still even before they could understand how it is not right to "bite" a brother, they themselves were "bitten". So they were able to understand the feeling. When YHWH provided for them in the desert with "the bread of angels" Psalm 78:25, at no cost, they proved themselves to be ungrateful by complaining, rebelling with unfaithful spirits against him. So YHWH decided to treat them like foreigners for a time, rather than his children, and exacted payment from them in the form of interest (neshek) by means of the seraph serpents who "bit (nashak) the people, so that many sons of Israel died."Numbers 21:6 

This bitting that is associated with snakes, being related to an "advantage" or "benefit" and therefore usury, may have come from the idea of a snakes who lie in wait for their prey. Perhaps people who are bit by snakes feel like they are also the prey of the snake, and that they've been "taken advantage" of by the sly snakes who hide under cover waiting for an opportunity to strike at the heel.

    Rattlesnake Jake, Rango, 2011

However the idea that a snake would do this to gain advantage for itself, other than to defend itself, would be personification. Snakes don't actually strike at people because they (snakes) are wicked and enjoy to see people (who are "foreigners" to snake-kind) pay.

It is interesting then that the golden haired boy in "The Little Prince" let himself be bit by a serpent in order to return home. In using his mortal body for "payment", the bite (nashak) of the snake, sent him home. But why was the snake an interested party? What did it benefit from the arrangement? What was its self-interest and gain? . . . Unless it ate him! Think about it, the narrator says his body was not there the next day. . . 🤔😵🤯

What was the interest of the snake in the garden of Eden for that matter? Do they [snakes] just take enjoyment in death? Is it a case of misery loves company? . . .  like, "Guess what?". . . "There is NO Santa Claus, na-na-na!"

"There-is-NO-sanc-tu-ary!"

"The Wizard is a man behind a curtain . . ."

    Sad Tigger - So you're sayin' there's no Santy Claus? Not even a teeny weeny little one?

Yeah, feel good now, snake?

No, it's hollow; a bottomless pit. Who wants an eternity of that? It doesn't make sense. But it makes sense as an analogy. The snake is an agent of change and change isn't always comfortable, it can be downright terrifying even, but change is sometimes necessary to bring about balance, moving away from the extremes. 

It's not good to remain in ignorance as eternal children, however, we don't want to then get to the other side, and see a "Dead End", or even worse a cliff at the edge of an endless abyss. That's scary. It is scary to be at the end and find that you're in a box, not a garden, but a prison. 

It is much nicer to settle down in the middle, with a whole infinite universe above you and a whole infinite universe below. No matter where you go; in or out, there is always more. So, basically, you are stuck in the middle, which is nice and interesting place to be. It is a home, a secure enclosure, a paradise. The windows can be shut to all the noise and chaos on the outside. Yet, the possibilities in-between are endless. So if you ever find yourself at a scary  place or dead end, keep in mind, it's not actually the end . . . mind simply makes More. 

King of the Jungle

   

Jungle Oasis

The word jungle comes from Sanskrit  jangala "arid, sparsely grown with trees", and Hindi jangal "desert, forest, wasteland, uncultivated land." So the meaning of the word jungle was originally not just the lush tropical, almost mythical, place we think of now. It had the meaning of any uncultivated place, even a desert, a wilderness, as in the place of testing from the bible, or the deshret, the "red (deshr) land," of the ancient Egyptians, ruled by the god of chaos, Set, the place of burial.  It seems that jungle as we use the word today has a more limited meaning; a tropical overgrown, tangled forest with vines. Like the place where we imagine Tarzan would be found.

    Tarzan Lord of the Jungle, by Edgar Rice Burrows 1928

But maybe a lot of this perception comes from movies. We see Tarzan encountering all kinds of creatures in the jungle, when actually not all of them may be found there. The lion is called "King of the Jungle," however because lions don't actually live in the jungle, it must mean "jungle" in the sense of "uncultivated land." The usual natural habitat of lions is prairies, semi-arid planes and Savannah grasslands on the continent of Africa. There are regions of tropical and sub-tropical rainforest in Africa, but lions aren't usually found there. Other members of the genus Pathera are found in jungle regions, such as tigers, leopards, and jaguars.

In the Gnostic tradition, the solar god is Yaldabaoth, the offspring of Sophia (Greek "Wisdom"). He is also called the lion-faced, Ariel "Ari (lion) +  El (God)." He is thought of as the demiurgic "creator", God, as opposed to the unknowable God. He is sometimes equated with YHWH.

    Yaldabaoth - the Lionfaced

Lion in Greek is leon λέον. If we put this word with  bab, a word meaning "gate" we get  Bab + leon, which sounds a lot like how we say Babylon. So, by this sound association the word Babylon might call to mind the lion. However, Babylon Βαβυλών, comes from the Greek rendition of the Akkadian Bab-ilani, meaning "gate of the god(s)," according to the Online Etymology Dictionary,

the Greek rendition of Akkadian Bab-ilani 'the gate of the gods,' from bab 'gate' + ilani, plural of ilu 'god'."[OE]

This name and its rendering has always been ripe with confusion. 

Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of the earth. Genesis 11:9

In the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) the name of the city in Genesis 11:9 [Babel], is translated as Synchysi Σύγχυσις "Confusion," from syncheo συγχέω

meaning "confuse, confound" in Greek, rather than Babel or Babylon (which is the Greek rendering used in the Book of Revelation). However in Hebrew the word used in the passage said to mean "confuse," balal "mingle, mix, confuse, confound," is only similar to the name given to the city, i.e., Babel, and not itself the same word, regardless of what the passage seems to imply.

Bet, Bet, Lamed  //  Bet, Lamed, Lamed Genesis 11:9

In the Vulgate (the Bible translated into Latin) the name of the city is transliterated as Babel, however, balal, is translated as confusum "confounded, confused," so the similarity is lost. 

Et idcirco vocatum est nomen ejus Babel, quia ibi confusum est labium . . . Genesis 11:9

This is the same thing we get from the English translations, which gives rise to the impression that the name Babel means confusion.

It is confusing. 

And who knows? Perhaps the Hebrew passage even means that the city was called Babel, due to the confusion, or rather mixing (balal) between the words used for "God" in the name of the city, rather than because of any similarity with the Hebrew word for confusion and the name Babel. The Latin word confusum also has this meaning of "mixed, mingled" as well. What if the passage, instead, read like this?

There the LORD mixed the language of all the earth, therefore its name was called Babel . . . And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of the earth.

In Hebrew the word for God is El and Elohim (the plural is used also for the singular "God"). So instead of the city being called Bab "Gate" +  ilani "God(s)," as in Akkadian, it was called Bab + el "God."  But then that causes balal (confusion) with a Hebrew speaker, because in Hebrew the word for "gate" is shaar, which would make Babilani into Shaarel   translated rather than Babel. Perhaps we might say that it is even particularly in naming and borrowing names (rather than translating meaning), that things get most confused and confounded. What a shame! And in Hebrew the word for "name" is shem (shame). This same thing is illustrated, for example, with the name of many gods, such as Uranus, in English. Uranus is just a name without its original meaning of "sky." And unfortunately, Uranus too has become a name of shame due to the fact that is sounds like Ur (your) + anus. So too, Babel, is just a name in English without its original meaning of "Gate of God," and instead is given the name of shame, i.e., confusion.

And it is sometimes true, that in mixing languages and borrowing / sharing names, ironically, division is created because people forget that they are talking about the same things. They can be communicating and understanding each other but a lot is lost in translation. It's the confusion that isn't seen or noticed that can create division.  

Credit: Lawrence Sromovsky, University of Wisconsin-Madison/W.W. Keck Observatory/NASA

We might also compare Babilani or Babylon with  Bab + Elyon. Ilani "God(s)" is similar sounding to Elyon a title given to God many times throughout the Old Testament. In Hebrew Elyon has the meaning "The Most High."

The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice. 2 Samuel 22:14

And El Elyon is "God Most High,"

Then Melchizedek king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, since he was the priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18

God (El) is the one up there, yon-der, you might even say, alien (from Latin alius, an"other"). And really what is higher than the heavens? The gods are the ELevated and ILUmined ones.

In Latin elegantem (nominative elegans) has the meaning "choice, fine, tasteful", but originally a term of reproach, elegans meaning "dainty, fastidious". Maybe it is elegans (pronounced not so much differently from elyon, especially in French), like being of the highest quality, or like the dress of the most high (elyon), a king. This is a good example of how words can be given either positive or negative connotation. For example the dress of a pope could be said to be elegans. Is the manner of dress either good or a bad thing, elegant or over the top? It is a matter of opinion.

    Pope Pius XII, reign 1939-1958 in his dress "Most High" or elegans

How did this word leon, then, which is like elyon, come to be the name of the animal? Lion comes by way of Latin and French, from the Greek leon, which is said to come from "a non-Indo-European language, perhaps Semitic." Lion has the connotation in biblical Greek of being dignified or of high quality, as in Revelation 5:5 when it speaks of "The Lion of the Tribe of Judah hath prevailed . . . " And in Greek the prefix ari- means "very" and is in words like aristos "best, brave one," so ari means "muchiness." However, in Hebrew ari אר׳ means "lion." So, perhaps the Greeks took the word meaning "most high," in Hebrew, i.e., elyon and made it the word to describe the ari (best) or most high (elyon) animal, the lion (ari). In Greek the leon is aristos (the lion is the best), and in Hebrew the ari is elyon (the lion is the most high) . . . And in Spanish El león is "The lion".

We do say that the lion is king, i.e., the most high, elyon, of the animal kingdom. Furthermore, the Ishtar gate of Babylon, which was initially known as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, was the main entrance to the city of Babylon. If you were walking into the city by this gate you would proceed down the Processional Way which was over a half mile long, and was adorned with flowers and 120 images of lions. The walls stood fifty feet tall on each side, rather impressive! It led to the temple of Marduk (Hebrew Merodach), Ba'al, "the Lord"(East Semetic Bel, Greek Belos, Latin Belus), the chief god of Babylon. [And it should be noted that "bel" is a word with etymological connections to "bright, light, shining one," as in Beltaine / Beltain / Beltine / Bealtaine / Bealltainn / Boaldyn, the Gaelic May Day fire festival that marks the beginning of summer to honor the god Belenus (Gaulish) / Bel / Bile (Irish) / Beli (Welsh),  the god of "light and healing."]

    Leones on the Processional Way of the Ishtar Gate, Babylon

So, imagine a person entering the city of Babylon by the main (or lion mane) gate. It is a gate with lions,  bab + leon. We might think that Babylon means "Lion Gate." And perhaps there is even a certain kind of truth in that incorrect interpretation. * The Problem With Language

Certain gods such as Ba'al "The Lord" and Moloch / Molech /  Molek, etc., from the Hebrew m-l-k root meaning "king" were given sacrifices in the burning furnace. In biblical Hebrew "hearth, altar-hearth" is ariel, so that would be, "lion of God". The opening to the fire might be thought of as representing the face of their god who was also represented at times by the bright fiery disk of the sun, whose face is like a lion with his mane; powerful and fearful. The lion is often used in connection with sun symbolism and sun gods. 


    A Lion. In Hebrew there are a few words for lion, Ari (from arah "to gather, gathered, pick, pluck"), also Arieh/Aryeh [Aramaic],  Layish (from "crusher" luwsh "kneed"), Shachal ("fierce lion" from the roar) and Kephir ("young lion")

Adonay / Adonai a name for God used in the Hebrew bible is translated as "The LORD." Adonay in Hebrew is from adon "lord, master, owner." Sometimes the Tetragrammaton, the four letter name of God, transliterated as YHWH / YHVH, is translated as "The LORD" as well, such as when the text says YHWH Elohim, it is translated as "The LORD God." Other times YHWH is translated as "God," when it is used with Adonay; Adonay YHWH "The LORD  God." 

However, YHWH is called not just, "The LORD," but he is qualified as "The LORD, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac and the God Jacob"(Ex 3:15). And we would say, also, this Lord is the God of Elijah, whose name means "Yah is my El" or "The LORD is my God." As opposed to - their - "Lord", i.e., Ba'al. (1 Kings18:20-40) [so they made a test to determine who's God was idle (didn't preform) and therefore the idol.]

Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD [YHWH] is God [Elohim], follow him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people remained silent. 1 Kings 18:21

Moloch / Molek ("king") is the god infamously known for requiring child sacrifice. If it was ever practiced as literal "passing through fire," or putting the child as a burnt offering into the fiery furnace, it is not so much different than what YHWH asked of Abraham to do to his "only begotten son," Issac on Mt. Moriah. (Genesis 22)

   Abraham prepares to Sacrifice Issac, Children's Illustrated Bible, 1994

The Lord asked Abraham to sacrifice Issac on an altar as a burnt offering. So, this is maybe what people were doing, what they thought their God wanted, the ultimate most precious sacrifice to prove their love and loyalty to him. Abraham thought his God wanted him to do this, so he was going to do it as a true sacrifice. It was very hard for him, but his LORD had asked him. What was he to do? Who can question God?

Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter! Does the clay say to him who fashions it, "What are you making?" or "Your work has no handles"? 

Woe to him who says to a father, "What are you begetting?" or to a woman, "With what are you suffering labor pains?"

Thus says the Lord the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands? 

I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was my hands that streached out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. Isaiah 45:9-12

However, we see that after God (elohim) sees the faithfulness of Abraham that the "angel of the LORD" malak YHWH, tells him to not kill his son and provides a ram stuck in a thicket in place of Isaac.

There seems to be a lot of overlapping and possible confusion with words having do with gods and their etymological connections with words for "light, bright, shining", "lion, most high", and even the words for "word" (words being the illuminators, bringers of knowledge and light). The words may not seem connected on the surface, however, we can see how this could happen by association between cultures and languages. 

In Greek leukos is "bright, shining, white," in Latin lucere "to shine," and Welsh llug "gleam glimmer" and llygedyn "glimmer, ray, gleam" (pron. as a palital hlah-ge-den). The Welsh god Lleu (pron. hlah/hlai), is also sometimes called Llew which is Welsh for "lion." He is thought to be the counterpart of the Irish Lugh/Lug (which sounds similar to "Luke" in pron.),  Gaulish Lugus, the god "skilled in many arts," who is sometimes, either correctly or incorrectly called a sun god. Lugh was identified with Mercury / Hermes by the Romans, the god of communication. The etymology of the name is not clear, many have thought that the name was connected to words having to do with light, and therefore sun symbolism, but others say Lugh is not a sun god and therefore that etymlogy is incorrect. In that respect, Lugh would have more in common with the Greek logos "word, speech, discourse", or "reason", and legein "to say, speak " lego "I say", than leukos "bright, shining, white".  

    Apollo and the Satyrs, by Gustave Moreau (1826-1898)

Apollo (Greek Apollon) was known as Phoebus (Gk. Phoibos "bright, radiant"), Helios "sun", Phanaios "giving or bringing light," Lukeios Proto-Greek "light", and by the Romans, Sol Latin "sun". However many of the gods are described as being "shinning" even when they are not a sun god. In fact the word deity comes from the proposed PIE root *dyue- "to gleam, shine" which is also the root of words for "sky" and "day."  So the English word deity comes from the idea of the gods being gleaming or shining ones.

The word for "light" in Latin is lux, and lucere means "to shine." In Greek logos is "word, reason, thought, speech." There seems to be certain connection between the two concepts that isn't at first obvious. Jesus is said to be both the "Light of the World," and the "Word of God." 

In Genesis it states that "in the beginning" God made light (Latin lux, Greek phos).

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 

Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. Genesis 1:3

At the start of the gospel of John,  Jesus is equated with the "Word," translated from the Greek logos (it is Verbum in the Vulgate), also said of "in the beginning,"

In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the begining with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. John 1:1-5

And Jesus says of himself in John 8:12, "I am the light of the world . . ."

Church of St. Brendan the Navigator, Bantry, County Cork, Ireland, [detail of third window of north wall]

It is also interesting that the English word "lung"comes from the word "light", but it is light as in, "light in weight." Lung is from Old English lungen, with the meaning of the "light in weight organ" from PIE root *legwh - "not heavy, having little weight; easy, agile, nimble" In Latin this became levis but in Old English it is leoht, however, leoht ALSO had the meaning of light, as in "light, daylight; luminous, beautiful".

We might wonder what the connection is between "little in weight" and "bright." In the underworld of the Ancient Egyptians, called the Duat / Tuat, there was a judgment ceremony after death called the "Weighing of the Heart." If the heart was found to balance with the feather of Ma'at "truth, order, justice," upon the scales of ma'at, that is, if it was light as the feather and light like the truth, the individual was able to pass on to the Afterlife, but the one who had a "heavy" heart was devoured by Ammit ("devourer, soul-eater"), who was a female demon, part lion, hippopotamus and crocodile, known as "Devourer of the Dead", "Eater of Hearts, and "The Great Death."

    Anubis and Ammit at the Weighing of a Heart against the Feather of Maat, Papyrus of Hunefer, c. 1375 BC

We see Jesus, "the Light of the world," as making burdens light. "Light" in Greek is phos and elephros "light, easy to bear, not burdensome".

The Greek word elephas / (genitive) elephantos has the meaning of both "elephant" and "ivory." It was used by ancient Greeks, such as Homer, to refer primarily to ivory (being the part go the animal they would most usually be dealing with),

The Greek word elephas, to which certain Western languages (English, French, German) owe the etymology of their word for elephant, when first used by the Greeks themselves primarily referred to ivory, not the animal. This is Homer's use of it (also Hesiod's and Pindar's); and for a considerable time thereafter, tangible experience of the Greeks of the elephant appears to have been restricted to tusks, an item of trade long before the Greek travelers had encountered the animal who carried them.  A Note on the Etymology of "Elephant", by Merlin Peris, JSTOR

Elephas is said to "probably come from a non-Indo-European, likely via Phoenician (compare Hamitic elu 'elephant' . . . or possibly from Sanskrit ibhah 'elephant' [OE]." So the name of the animal seems to have the connotation of (ele )"ivory; elphant" +  words having to do with "light"(phaino, phos, or phantos "visible"). 

However, the Phoenician word for "god / deity," El / Il or Ilu, is itself similar to the word for ivory / elephant, so perhaps the name of the ivory is connected to the idea of deity the "shining"  one(s). The elevated ones. The leukos "bright, shining, white," like ivory.

In ancient Egyptian ab was "elephant," and in Coptic ebu "ivory", which is similar to "ivory" (ab / ebu-ory [maybe like ab + hr.w (Horus) "the distant one"]. Ab in Latin has the meaning "off, away from." Ab is also related to a name for God (El) as well, as in Ab / Abba "Father (God)" the head, and the power, Allah (from al "the" - Ilah "God", cognate with Aramaic elah). Elephant is an animal that is a beast that carries heavy burdens easily, and is a bearer of the white, bright ivory. Like the symbolism of the lion the elephant and its ivory seem to have been connected to the imagery of the shining god / divinity, the most high god.

In Hebrew "to be or become light" is or / ore meaning "shine." To become like that first light, by the Word of God. In Latin Oremus is "Let us pray." So "Be the light" with the notion of  "Be like the light of God, or "Raise yourselves to the Light" ele-phros, the Word of God, and your burdens become light (light as a feather [ma'at]?). Learn from Me!

"Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke (zugos, "yoke; balance, measuring scales," in Hebrew mot) upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy (chrestos) and the burden light (elephros)." Matthew 11:28-30

Jesus the Christ is the "light of God", like the Hindu, Jains, Buddhist god, Ganesha / Ganapti. Some have translated this name as "Lord of Hosts"(that would be YHWH Sabaoth in Hebrew). From Gane ("group, multitude, categorical system") + isha "lord or master" in Sanskrit, or Gana ("group") + pati ("lord, master"). He is also called the "Lord of letters and of learning," so we could connect him to Logos, and he is also said to personify the primordial sound OM or AUM, which is the Word of God.

As Vinayaka "Lord of Obstacles," Ganesha is called the remover of obstacles, or, we might say, the one who makes burdens light (elephros).

  Ganesha, Lord of the Ganas, Lord of Hosts

And in that day, says YHWH, you will call me, "My husband" (Ishi 'my man' [as in a male, not female], thus 'husband'), and no longer will you call me, "My Baal"(Baali 'my Baal', meaning 'Lord, Master')"Hosea 2:16

So it is saying they will call the Lord, their Is / Ish "man", as Eve (isa / isha "wife, woman") called Adam, her husband (man), rather than calling him "Lord, Master" specifically Baal, however Adonay and Yah both have the meaning of "Lord" as well . . .  

Well, I hope this has served to shed some light on a few things. 
Did I tell you? We are all connected.

Namaste!