On What Are These Things Woven Back And Forth? : Thoughts on Duality.

On What Are These Things Woven Back And Forth? : Thoughts on Duality.

By A.D. Wayman

(A Contribution to the Synchroblogging Project on the topic of Duality)

“He sees, but he can’t be seen; he hears but can’t be heard; he thinks but he can’t be thought of; he perceives but he can’t be perceived. Besides him, there is no one who sees, no one who hears, no one who thinks, and no one who perceives. It is this self of yours that is the inner controller, the immortal. All besides this is grief.”1

Many times in religious literature we find the theme of duality. At times the literature tells us that we may have been cheated or trick out of the solution to the problem from the very start. Eve, being tricked by the serpent, into eating of the tree of “Knowledge of Good and Bad” and being exiled before eating of the tree of life; Gilgamesh falling asleep and having the plant of life stolen by the serpent; Adapa refusing to eat and drink what the gods fed him out of fear, thus missing out on immortality. At times we look for answers to the issue, which religious literature tries to provide. Many times these answers are not answers at all but multiple views on how to enable ourselves to overcome the issue of duality. For some this enabler is Torah, for some Jesus, others it is Atman, and still others may say it is the Buddha in all. Whatever the belief system, many different cultures use theses archetypes, metaphors and symbols to better understand themselves and their role in the world, universe, and society. In this short essay we will discuss a few topics concerning duality. The comparisons are not all that encompassing, but one can get a glimpse, and then pursue the topic in more detail if desired.

In the first example we read some of the conflict that the writer Paul, in the New Testament had to confront. One can almost feel the frustration at the acknowledgement of the polar issues people find themselves consumed by.

“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:15-24 NRSV)

While the above text shows the writer Paul is torn by this inner conflict within himself; another makes good use of the duality and sees both as a complement to one another. In one of my world religion classes I attended the professor brought up a saying that I loved and carried with me. “Neither this nor that, but both and.” In the Tao-Te-Ching we read that such things can compliment each other and that we may have to do nothing at all!

“All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing
this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they all know the skill
of the skilful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what the
want of skill is. So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to
(the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce the one (the
idea of) the other; that length and shortness fashion out the one the
figure of the other; that (the ideas of) height and lowness arise from
the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and
tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and
that being before and behind give the idea of one following another.

Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and
conveys his instructions without the use of speech.” 2

In relation to this we find a saying by the Jewish teachers concerning Torah study which like the above shows a hint of the idea of non-action.

One that sits and studies, the Scripture imputes to him as if he fulfilled the whole Thorah, for it is said, He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him. 3 *

Still others question the issue and lash out at the very tools that we were given to combat such issues. It is perfectly human to do this, we find such issues arise in the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna on the field of truth, in the battle of life. The most beautiful exchanges show the weaknesses that arise when the body and mind are under distress. Another example of this would be the text of the biblical Job. In all his anger Job questions his creator and at times entertains the idea of putting the deity on trial. Like Krishna the deity answers back, but with a little more force.

“And the Lord said to Job: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Anyone who argues with God must respond.” Then Job answered the Lord: “See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but will proceed no further.” Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: “Gird up your loins like a man; I will question you, and you declare to me. Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? “Deck yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor. Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on all who are proud, and abase them. Look on all who are proud, and bring them low; tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then I will also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can give you victory.” (Job 40:1-14 NRSV)

In the above text we see Job’s response is cowering before the deity and he is plainly saying “Okay Yahweh, I’ll shut my mouth now.” Here Yahweh is frustrated that Job would even try to understand the workings of the gods and the laws of the earth and heavens. It is somewhat humors that here Yahweh seems to tell Job that if he could do better, Yahweh would be more then happy to let him try. On the opposite side however we find a text attributed to Jesus, that the workings have been given to a few, and here Christ explains why he speaks in parables. Like the opening verses that we used from the Upanishads we see the same theme but in a different environment and used with a different metaphoric “enabler”. It appears Christ is frustrated with those who do not understand the self or the living Torah within. Here Christ believes that the “enabler” has been intentionally turned off.

“He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’ With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: “You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn— and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it”. (Mat 13:11-17 NRSV)

The concept of duality rages through out literature, gods elbowing one another out of power, heroes overcoming against their counterparts, trips to the underworld, cosmic wars and much more. There seems to be a need for balance; the concept of the Chinese Yin and Yang may somehow come into play. However, with issues of fear and suffering such explanations do not enlighten one to the challenges faced when we find ourselves in the belly of the whale, or swallowed by a Tiamat or Mot. As Bart Ehrman discusses in his book “God’s Problem.” There is no one solution and so one may need to look to more then one enabler or mythology to find our place.

1. Patrick Olivelle, trans., Upanishads, Oxford World’s Classics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). pg. 44

2. The Texts of Taoism, Part 1: The Tâo Teh King (Tâo Te Ching) of Lâo Dze (Lao Tsu), The Writings of Kwang-dze (Chuang-tse). Translation James Legge. The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 40. F. Max Müller. 1891. From Internet Sacred Texts Archive.

3. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirqe Aboth) Translated by Charles Taylor [1897]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/sjf/index.htm pg. 43 (* For a more in-dept research on this topic see blog Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism and the post http://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/ain-and-yesh-being-and-nothingness-in.html)

Read more on the topic form the other talented participants of the project:

Between Old and New Moons

Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism

Goddess in a Teapot

The Aquila ka Hecate

Full Circle Earthwise News

Mythprint (all the myth that’s fit to print)

Stone Circle

Women and Spirituality

Frontiers of Wonder

Paleothea - Sing, Goddess

Quaker Pagan Reflections

Heart of Flame

Pitch 313

Executive Pagan

Druid’s Apprentice

The Druid Journal

Manzanita, Redwoods and Laurel

Dream Builders: A Figment of Imagination

When Isis Rises

What’s Your Praxin & Charisma?

On the forum Yeshua Quest there is currently an excellent article on the Greek word praxin which means “mode of being,” which alludes to one’s natural response to just about any given situation one encounters in life. One’s praxin can be viewed as the default setting to one’s approach to life.

1. The Prophet - one who speaks forth or fore-tells and warns.
2. The Servant - one eager to serve others and/or execute orders.
3. The Teacher - one who is at heart a student, an analyst and/or instructor.
4. The Exhorter - one who verbally comforts and/or cheers and encourages others to excel.
5. The Giver - one with a philanthropic & entrepreneurial disposition, who has the ability to make and manage money well.
6. The Merciful - an empathic soul, who physically and emotionally seeks to comfort and/or care for others.
7. The Ruler - one who is a born leader, administrator or manager.

Read the full essay here and find out which role you may be playing!

Beware of the Dogs: Paul and the Philippian Opponents

Beware of the Dogs: Paul and the Philippian Opponents

Schmithals, in his text Paul and the Gnostics lays out a compelling hypothesis on who the Apostle Paul labeled as “Dogs” in the text of Philippians. Below we will look at the letter that concerns us and discuss some of the theories of who these people were and why they were causing such an issue for Paul. Given below is Epistle “C” of the Philippian text. Schmithals breaks the text into three separate parts and hypothesizes that the text was written and later woven together. Other scholars also hold this view and with a few differing verses ,1 for the most part, agree with the “three Letter” theory. For this topic we will only be concerned with the Epistle “C”. It is in this Epistle that Paul uses the strongest language against those who were set to undermine his message and theology.

Epistle “C”

3:2-4:3+ 4:8-9 NRSV

Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh— even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. Only let us hold fast to what we have attained. Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved. I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.

The above section was possibly written last as Paul has received a gift while in prison and through Epaphras sends a brief note of thanks 4:10-23. Later we find Epaphras falling ill and the Philippians heard of the issue at some point. Paul gets wind of divisions occurring in and od adversaries and writes 1:1-3 + 4:4-7 and send Epaphras back. It is shortly after this he gains more information of the issue and perhaps recognizes similarities to the Galatian issue or that of Corinth and so writes the above “C’ Epistle, 3:2-4:3+ 4:8-9.2 After reading the text above as a whole we can see how well the text coincides with the subject matter, unbroken, and Paul having more information can better combat the issue of those trying to undermine him and his followers.

Before discussing such a topic some preconceived notions about the texts of Paul must first be dispelled. The first is the assumed notion that is was Jewish believers trying to undermine Paul. Many a excellent scholars have erred on this notion without considering the other possibilities. Secondly, and of less importance, the writing of Polycarp to the Philippians, which references to “Letters” appear do not necessarily mean the present writing, which some use to break up the text of Philippians as Schmithals hypothesizes . Many letters may have been circulated and lost. The critical analysis breakup of the text should be looked at from all points of view and as with such studies there are no absolutes.

In identifying these mischievous opponents we turn to a quote in an essay by Darrell J. Doughty from Drew University.

“See W. SCHMITHALS, “Die Irrlehrer des Philipperbriefes,” in Paulus und die Gnostiker. Untersuchungen zu den kleinen Paulusbriefen (Hamburg: Herbert Reich, 1965), 47-88; A.F.J. KLIJN, “Paul’s Opponents in Philippians iii,” NovTest 7 (1964), 278-284; H. KOESTER, “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Philippians III),” NTS 8 (1961/62), 317-332; J. GNILKA, “Die antipaulinischen Mission in Philippi,” BZ 9 (1965), 258-276; R. JEWETT, “Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians,” NovTest 12 (1970) 362-389; P. SIBER, Mit Christus Leben (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971). The history of the debate concerning the opponents of Paul is summarized by E.E. ELLIS, “Paul and his Opponents: Trends in Research,” in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Graeco-Roman Cults. Festschrift M. Smith (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 264-298.

Schmithals conceives the supposed opponents in Philippi as Jewish-Christian Gnostic libertines, who regarded circumcision as a symbol of their spiritual liberation from the flesh and as the distinctive mark of their Jewish origin, to which they appealed as a sign of their personal authority, but who may or may not have demanded circumcision from the Philippians. Most scholars, however, perceive the opponents as Jewish-Christian Judaizers, who explicitly demanded circumcision and submission to the law as a condition for participation in the promises of salvation. But scholars differ as to the actual identity of these opponents, whether they were similar to those known from 2 Corinthians (Gnilka), or Galatians (Jewett), or perhaps from Colossians (Koester), and whether they were moral libertines (Gnilka), or legalistic perfectionists (Koester), or whether opponents of both varieties were present (Jewett).”3

It is thought by the author of this essay that much of the studies done concerning the opponent of Paul in in Glacia can be applied here. S. Madewell brought forth some strong arguments of the Proto-Gnostic as the opponents. In an essay concerning the topic S. Madewell uses Schmithals to make a compelling argument quoted below:

“Schmithals writes, “Circumcision underwent a Gnostic reinterpretation….. The foreskin symbolized the body of flesh (sarx) and thus the - really performed - act of circumcision portrayed the liberation of the pneuma-self from the prison of this body.”^*Gospel of Philip, Saying 123, “When Abraham rejoiced that he would see that which he was to see, he cut off the flesh of his foreskin, whereby he shows us that it is necessary to destroy the flesh of the members of the world.”Paul was a proto-rabbinic sage. For Paul, the “pneuma” (spirit) and the “sarx” (flesh) meant the Good Impulse and the Evil Impulse - the two components of the “psyche” (soul). For Paul, what truly mattered was that one become a “new creature” (Gal. 6:15) via the activation of the Good Impulse, which couldn’t be accomplished by the removal of one’s foreskin. (If that were the case, then how could females hope to become “new creatures”…?) However, for those influenced by a Platonic framework the words “pneuma” and “sarx” took on a meaning distinct from Paul’s proto-rabbinic orientation. This is why ascetic proto-Gnostics could glory in their pneumatic attainments, while exhorting others to cast off the sinful flesh. Pop-culture reference? How ’bout Marshall Applewhite?

Schmithals writes, “For Gnosticism … circumcision is an unnecessary action with only symbolic significance, which one could, for tactical external reasons, just as well maintain as abandon. That the cutsom of circumcision among Jewish Christian Gnostics in the Syrian-Palestinian territory was common and was still practiced in Galatia is just as likely as the fact that it was given up as the progress of the Gnostic mission advanced toward the West. Thus the church’s heresy fighters cannot in fact report of any of the later Gnostics that they practiced circumcision.”^*

Here are some other points Schmithals^* makes:

1. Jewish Christian Gnostics, whose home in any case was not Judea, naturally had no connection at all with the “apostolic counicl” [Acts 15] and its agreements.

2. The church fathers unanimously know to report that precisely in the early, the New Testament, the Pauline era, and precisely in Gentile territory, especially in Asia Minor, [Jewish Christian Gnostics] had preached circumcision.

3. It is most obvious to select the Jewish Christian Gnostic named, Cerinthus, particularly as described by Epiphanius, for comparison with the Galatian adversaries of Paul. In all the accounts of the church fathers we can detect how dangerous Cerinthus must have been to the beginning Gentile Christianity. His appearance in Asisa Minor is historically incontestable. Asia is said to have been his homeland. Epiphanius even reports that his school flourished in Galatia. In any case, he belongs to the early period, to the beginnings of Christian Gnosticism, and without question connects typical Gnosticism with a confession of Christ and with Jewish practices such as that of circumcision.

4. One need not immediately assume that they were Cerinthians who appeared in Galatia, but in no case can on at once attribute the false teachers, because of their circumcision, to the judaizing party. This heretical feature fits at least just as well … at any rate in that time and place, with Jewish Christian Gnosticis, who are conducting a mission in Paul’s tracks.

^* - Walter Schmithals, “Paul & the Gnostics,” pp. 13-59.4

Along with this argument, and treading lightly another possibility arises. That these opponents may have been, like those in Glatia Shammite Spies. In another essay concerning Glatians, S. Madewell discusses this theory at length.

“I am of the opinion that the pro-circumcision hardliners from Judea, who appeared at the Syrian Antioch - having been sent there by Yeshua’s brother, Ya’akov (James) - were disciples of Bet Shammai and that, having presented themselves to Ya’akov, they claimed to be followers of Yeshua in order to infiltrate their ranks for the purpose of finding something to charge them with. They might have intended to drag Yeshua’s followers before one of the local Judean, Shammaite controlled 23-Man Sanhedrins. Alternately, they might have wanted to dig up some dirt on Yeshua’s followers and turn them over to the Zadokite controlled Political Sanhedrin, if one accepts Solomon Zeitlin’s argument - in “Who Crucified Jesus?” - that such a body did indeed exist. No doubt, Ya’akov (James) perceived the hidden agenda of these Shammaites and decided to get them out from under foot by sending them to the Syrian Antioch, where they would have no recourse to their courts and/or the Zadokites and their thugs. When these Shammaites “from James” arrived at the Syrian Antioch they found Shimon (Peter) conducting a “visitation” of sorts with this mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Believers. Shimon (Peter), as Ya’akov (James) before him, probably realized immediately that these were Shammaites and, with Yeshua’s warning in mind (Matt. 10:17), he grew fearful of these “certain men of Judea” and separated himself from the Gentile Believers, because he was all too aware of the fact that Bet Shammai regarded Pagans and Gerim Toshav (Repentant Gentiles) as inherently impure.” 5

Still after all the research and possibilities scholars are still divided on who the opponents may have been. It is hoped that by going through some of the theories and the historical background that more information can be gleamed from the references in the text. When dealing with such topics, one may never be able to find a definite answer however some make more sense then others. The most common issue is the misunderstanding of Jewish and Gnostic history and theology and how these belief systems evolved.

1. For the different theories on where the letter is separated see Schmithals Paul and the Gnostics. p.79-80

2. Schmithals lays out this hypothesis in Paul and the Gnostics. p.79

3. Darrell J. Doughty “Citizens of Heaven. Philippians 3:2-21 as a Deutero-Pauline Passage” http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/djdcitz.html

4. See S. Madewell’s “Paul vs. the proto-Gnostics” at http://z11.invisionfree.com/Yeshua_Quest/index.php?showtopic=47

5. See S. Madewell’s “The Shammite Spies at the Syrian Antioch” at http://z11.invisionfree.com/Yeshua_Quest/index.php?showtopic=47