Genesis According to the Ontological Tradition

Carlo Suarés : Genesis according to the ontological tradition (Revue Etre Libre. Numiros 152-154, Ao{t-Octobre 1958) C. Suarés, Mme WWW, Nadine Suarhs, D. Harding, WWW, R. Linssen INTRODUCTION First of all, it is necessary to know clearly why one chooses this or that line of meditation. All reflective minds perceive themselves in their relationships with themselves and with the universe. But these reports are too often prefabricated by the community. When one awakens to an individual reflection, it becomes almost impossible to know for what reasons one is made in order to believe or not to believe in a personal God, in a materialist or spiritualist, scientist or skeptical way. And if one is not conditioned by the medium, one is by opposition to the medium, which is hardly more valid. It does not seem essential to us to meditate on the Old or New Testaments in order to attain Knowledge. But if we imagine the extraordinary importance of these two works in our civilizations, their constant action on the spirits belonging to the three religions known as revealed or on the spirits which fight these religions, and if we examine ourselves deeply enough to discover that one is oneself involved, in one way or another, in some of the themes raised by these Books and in the bloody conflicts which result from it, one can rightly say that it is important and even necessary to seek to penetrate these writings. Indeed, not only does it become urgent, at this vertiginous turning point in human adventure, to know if this Revelation is not rather an Abyss, but what is curiously difficult at the start is to update the unconscious positions, therefore often absurd, where we are, one and the other, in relation to these texts. Should we not, at the outset, admit frankly that we have implicitly accepted or rejected religious, historical or exegetical interpretations of these books, without knowing these books directly? We have just said that it is important to know what the Bible contains, to see if it contains a valid or unreal, useful or harmful message. We will come back to our reasons later, in order to be sure of this before undertaking a work that will surely be very difficult, long and full of pitfalls, Before organizing an expedition, is it not necessary to have a general idea of ??the goal that we propose? And if we do not know which regions we will explore, should we not, at least, know which directions we do not want to take and why we do not want them take and 2 0 what is the starting point that we choose and why we choose it? Have the first five Books (the Torah of the Jews) been in existence for five millennia? Is their origin in Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Sumer? What is the contribution of the Semites? Are there different and contradictory traditions, such as the elohimist and the yahwist? When do these writings become historical? Did Abraham from Our exist or is he just an eponym? Do the famous documents known as "of the Dead Sea" contain clarifications on the existence of a master of Wisdom, on the Essenes or the life of Jesus? None of the answers to these questions would shed any light on the fundamental problem that was posed at the beginning of these lines: the relationships of my consciousness with myself and with the Universe. So I eliminate all these questions: they do not interest me. We will not go into History or Exegesis. So, let's take a look at the text as it stands, and then we'll see if we have an advantage in consulting one or another of its interpreters. But which text to take? Common sense dictates that we take the original text in Hebrew, coupled with a translation into a language we speak (in French, for example) and comments. The real difficulty is to completely wash my mind before opening the Book; to empty myself not only of the notions of which I am aware - which is already difficult - but of all the unconscious infrastructures of my psyche, since I want to know whether the text that I am going to read (text and comments) will or will not illuminate the reports of my consciousness with myself and with the universe. I want to know if I will find a direct opening on my ontological situation. And, in order to define this last word, which relates to the science of being, I tell myself that there is no knowledge of being except through the knowledge of my being, such as he is right now, in this place, alive and present. I am looking for a concrete, real, current and immediate ontological opening. The purpose of my attempt will be to see if this Book has anything valid to tell me about it. The volume that I have in my hand is titled: "The Bible, a new translation, with Hebrew facing. Dedicated to S. M. Louis-Philippe 1er, King of the French. By S. Cahen, Member of the Royal Academy of Metz and of several Learned Societies. Pentateuque Tome premier. Second edition reviewed and corrected. Paris 1845 ". I open it, and, leaving aside the Hebrew which I cannot decipher, I read: "l. In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2. The earth was shapeless and in disorder, et cI reflect on these words, I read and reread them, and I have to tell myself that not only do I not understand them, but that in all objectivity, they do not have no meaning. My reason is so made that she can never conceive a beginning or a non-beginning. Creating something from nothing is unintelligible. What does the word God mean? What does it mean? A supercosmic character who lived in nothingness? Whatever my desire to value this phrase, I can see no thought of it, but a series of childish images; a beginning, a God, a creation. Let these images be reflected in primitive minds and there they are capable of generating a false reality, a false explanation, to the way in which certain dreams impose an obviousness of which we discover with amazement, on waking, the extreme absurdity. Is it possible that we are still there? Here are some excerpts from what our scholarly commentator says on the subject. On "at the beginning": The translators do not agree on the precise meaning of this word: first, first of all, at the beginning, all these expressions differ only in slight nuances ... ThuSo here we are alone in front of this prestigious Book, alone as if no one had ever spoken of it, alone by our refusal to accept its interpretations; alone, as one sets out to explore a virgin forest where no explorer has ever ventured. Isn't that how those who always understood it always did? On the threshold of this journey, we now know how to embark on it: we must boldly penetrate the original text and, in the process, wrest its secret from this language ... if it exists. But let's come back to our reasons, to make sure. It is not about believing that God exists or that He does not exist. Any wrongly asked question finds equally s God made heaven and earth from nothing ... God considered to be the collection of all forces, the Almight y and ... we think that Buffon did nto. stray from the truth by saying that the translation of this verse should be: In the beginning God drew nothing from heaven and Earth.., " On "the earth in disorder": The author cites several interpretations, then: "Of all these interpretations, the most true, that which shows that the translator had meditated the most on the thought of sacred history, is that of the Septuagint. Creation is revealed to us in a form all the more sublime as it is concise and that it better represents, if it is possible for man to represent something so prodigiously marvelous, the instantaneity of the manifestation of the divine will, for there is no interval between the will to produce and the act. The first verse is therefore as we have said, like the summary of this account and what follows, a simple explanation, clear and as intelligible as any mind applied to the consideration of such a great object. Indeed, what could be the state of things after the first act of the supreme will? ... etc ... etc ... " Let's go no further: this is where the great separation takes place. Any problem badly posed by ignorance finds its pseudo-explanation, which aims to comfortably install ignorance in a myth. The false thinker, identified with his ignorance, projects himself into it, with it, into imaginary but unimaginable, so-called spiritual, regions. The appeasement which comes to cover ignorance (and fear) and the intimate satisfaction which results from it, take the place of Revelation. The latter, rid of the scholarly jargon of theologians, amounts to saying that an inordinate character did everything by blowing in the void. Those who experience an intimate pleasure in following the simplistic data of the speculations accumulated over several millennia will have an interest in abandoning the reading of these lines and in finding in abundant libraries the works of the Fathers of the Church, philosophers, mystics, heretics, or Jewish and Christian Kabbalists, as desired. From our point of view, all these authors without exception are traditionalists if they accept at the outset the creation of the Universe by a personal God as an explanation for the inexplicable. They are then inside the myth. So none of these writings can interest us. No more than among historians and exegetes, we will not seek the explanation of the Bible from commentators, whoever they may be, of the so-called sacred texts. So here we are alone in front of this prestigious Book, alone as if no one had ever spoken of it, alone by our refusal to accept its interpretations; alone, as one sets out to explore a virgin forest where no explorer has ever ventured. Isn't that how those who always understood it always did? On the threshold of this journey, we now know how to embark on it: we must boldly penetrate the original text and, in the process, wrest its secret from this language ... if it exists. But let's come back to our reasons, to make sure. It is not about believing that God exists or that He does not exist. Any wrongly asked question finds equally "yes" and "no." I propose to undertake meditations based on a key (discovered or invented) that I will apply to the first verses of the Book of Genesis. At the start, I ask myself the fundamental question of consciousness, consciousness of being, carried away - as it is perceived - in the perpetual movement of an unthinkable Universe. Unthinkable as a finite universe or as having no end, unthinkable if it came out of nothing or if its substance has always existed. Within this unthinkable, I perceive my consciousness locked in myself in the intrinsic character of duality. The depths of this perception is necessarily an anxiety, an essential malaise. This suffocation, I put myself from the start unable to transform it into any soothing pseudo-thought explanation. Indeed, I have already tried philosophical or theological jugglings based on words such as God, Being, Infinity, Substance, Essence, Life, Eternity, Good, Evil, Perfection, Absolute, Creation, Nothingness or any other word . This trial condemns, with regard to my own thought, the buildings constructed on "concepts", these not being "conceived" in the mind as an understanding of existing things, but "conceived" as manufactured by him. This artifice appears to me clearly, I see that these words have for content only desires and precisely anxieties related to that which my own conscience discovered at the bottom of the perception which it has of itself. Thus, words such as "In the beginning God created ..." seem to me to be only imaginary rails on which, in a dream state, a false thought gets carried away in the illusion of going somewhere, when real thought makes us understand that this beginning, this God and this "created" are absurd. How can we be surprised by the extravagance of the regions where these stories are raised? Here is that the Earth generates all its vegetation before the creation of the sun and the stars? Here is a first creation of humans as a species following animal species, obliterated by the brilliance of an Adam all alone, preceding not only woman (we know the story) but all animal species. And how can we be surprised that the clearest symbolic tales, such as the story of Cain, son of the Lord, killing the carnal man and therefore cursed on Earth (and avenged by the Lord) are systematically read backwards? But how can we not be surprised by the bewitching power of these Hebrew tales? And as soon as the image of our civilizations in their relations with the Bible and the Koran comes to mind, on the one hand, and on the other hand the Jews innumerable, unfathomable, insoluble questions are jostled about this human adventure, which we are starting to discover almost everywhere today. Thus, words such as "In the beginning God created ..." seem to me to be only imaginary rails on which, in a dream state, a false thought gets carried away in the illusion of going somewhere, when real thought makes us understand that this beginning, this God and this "created" are absurd. How can we be surprised by the extravagance of the regions where these stories are raised? Here is that the Earth generates all its vegetation before the creation of the sun and the stars? Here is a first creation of humans as a species following animal species, obliterated by the brilliance of an Adam all alone, preceding not only woman (we know the story) but all animal species. And how can we be surprised that the clearest symbolic tales, such as the story of Cain, son of the Lord, killing the carnal man and therefore cursed on Earth (and avenged by the Lord) are systematically read backwards? But how can we not be surprised by the bewitching power of these Hebrew tales? And as soon as the image of our civilizations in their relations with the Bible and the Koran comes to mind, on the one hand, and on the other hand the Jews innumerable, unfathomable, insoluble questions are jostled about this human adventure, which we are starting to discover almost everywhere today. Since we are all involved in this adventure, is it not necessary to examine its paradox and understand? Doesn't the paradox appear in the contradiction between the real causes of conflicts and the reasons given for them? Isn't everything a lie? Isn't the world torn between the satiated and the malnourished? Isn't the fear of some evident in their will to power, that of others in the disorder of their weakness? Are not the leaders of each other using gigantic forces to assert their privileges? Do they not maneuver the masses to be voted for? Are not the men in power themselves manipulated by ulterior and ulterior motives? Are not the daily balance sheets of our societies the result of showdowns in which it would be futile to try to hear the voice of the God of Abraham, the voice of Justice? And yet here is the paradox: the blind violence of our perpetual wars - hidden or declared - launches the Discovery towards dazzling regions, where the cosmic substance tamed, where the acceleration of Time, where the proliferation of means drag men in spite of themselves towards what will be, and which is hidden in the Unknown. And, contradictorily, this God of religions whom either adore or deny, fragmented into particularist conceptions, rooted in the past, in historical or imaginary memories, armed with all the perfections and all the virtues, dressed universality, only intervenes as an object of discord, as an instrument of murder. Here is the paradox: Sometimes Germans massacre several million Jews and spread the poison of anti-Semitism around the world; sometimes American leaders proclaim that only societies based on personal profit are Christian; sometimes, in the name of a messianism which has become materialist, the Church is persecuted; civil wars break out for or against God; Muslims and Hindus are tearing apart and cannot support each other; such hatred ignites between Ishmael and Israel that it becomes indifferent to them to blow up the planet. So this God who does not act anywhere, who is not a shareholder of any oil company, intervenes only free of charge, to massacre, while the boards of directors agglomerate in Catholic capitalism, Protestant, Jewish capitalism, Muslim or Godless. It is too easy to say: "these religions are in decline, their original spirit is dead", because these claims are contradicted by the facts. The Books titled one Holy Bible, including the Old and New Testaments, the other the Koran, constitute the most widespread reading, in the civilizations which claim of these texts known as "revealed". Doesn't the surprising obstinacy of the readers of these untranslatable, incomprehensible books, interpreted wrongly and through, not pose a deep questioning? Other civilizations have, or have had, to define their religious themes, sacred traditions, symbolic texts, books of Wisdom, relating to natural forces variously interpreted but existing, perceptible, tangible. Practical morals; rules of conduct adapted to the conditions of these companies; definitions of effective and really operating social functions within these social groups, give or gave to men conditioned by these myths, an apparently coherent existence and to societies an apparently rational basis. These human consciousnesses are or were in a state to perceive themselves as functions of these myths. These are still the national and patriotic myths that we see sporadically ignite and die out according to the interests which arouse them. They are inconsistent and precarious. Quite different is the Hebrew myth, which no one understands, no more the Jews, in their vocation to be perpetually slaughtered in his name, than their killers. These are some of the questions that crowd my mind during my meditations. They come at a time when, posing the problem of creation - not of the creation of the world, but of the creative phenomenon - and suddenly understanding by means of a key (discovered or invented) that the very first word BERECHIT can help to participate in the process of creation, therefore to know it, I wonder if this key will still be valid later, when I arrive at absurd, unthinkable and in truth meaningless words such as "The heavens and the earth; the earth was shapeless and empty; there was darkness on the surface of the abyss and the spirit of God was moving over the waters." What is this land? What are these heavens? How, in what way, how is it shapeless and empty? What does a shapeless land mean? What is it empty of? If it's empty of everything, doesn't it have substance? The spirit of God: what is this inconceivable postulate about which I must lie to myself by conceiving it spinning? And what is this darkness, this abyss, and, suddenly these waters that we mention in passing, after neglecting to tell me if and when they were made? Asking myself these questions and being amazed by the childishness of the minds which take these texts thus translated into all languages ??into high consideration, all the other questions on our civilizations and the individual and collective contradictions in which we are drawn appear to me. It seems that there is less a conditioning in a myth there than holes of conscience compared to a historical movement all the more irresistible as it is moved by data which want to be unconscious. And one wonders if these data are not hidden in the mysteries of this strange Book whose effects are opposed to its unknown truth and will remain so as long as the conscious consciousness opposes its unconscious motives. How else could we explain the contradictory phenomenon that together constitute this Book and the civilizations whose collective psyches are haunted by its symbols? One of these symbols, the flaming sword angel, guardian of the Tree of Life, is it not the very image of the provocation that these writings throw at us? Isn't Jacob's fight against the angel both a call to a singular fight and proof of the defeats on which religions are based? Because, in fact, should we bow down to the angel or throw himself on him to take hold of the tree of Life? Should we pray on his knees or knock him down to wrest his blessing from him? Is the man sheep of a Shepherd, or the Eloh victorious of Elohim. Can freedom be at the end of the path of bondage? And aren't symbols symbols of prisons? ... Prisons inside which one turns, imagining oneself going towards God? This God how could he be the Truth ?? It seems to me, here, to perceive a distinction between myths which are religious transpositions of sensory perceptible facts such as the worship of the Sun, the ancient celebrations of the changes of seasons, the deification of the forces of Nature, etc ... and the Bible. Because, here, there remains no obvious support whose myth would be the allegory; nor can we find there the personification of categories such as Brahma and Vishnu; nor, in the confusion of his accounts, a way of asceticism in the Taoist or Buddhist way; nor the expression of a wisdom of the order of that of Confucius. In truth, the object of Myth, this motive around which it lavishes its absurdities, can only be an explosive force, compressed in symbols, enclosed in the sacrosanct character that is attributed to its false interpretations and skillfully used against itself. If this is true, the word myth applied to the Bible must be understood in the sense of falsehood from the words "in the beginning" to the last words of Revelation; lies the dogma of original sin, which is contradicted by the text of a story in which, moreover, no one believes; lies the launching of Jesus in heaven, following a resurrection on Earth, hidden, neutralized, made fleeting and clandestine because it is right not to believe it. It cannot be denied that the first chapter of Genesis has the character of a cosmogony. But let's not forget the errors, the absurdities in which the outward appearance of words involves superficial minds, and first of all those of theologians. Here are centuries that we seek either to explain, or to ignore the third day, the day on which the Earth spawned all its vegetation before the creation of the sun, the moon and the stars, as well as other accounts, no less insane, and whose enormity even rises in our eyes like signals to make it clear to us that it is something else. A cosmogony, no doubt yes, but not as one can guess from a translation. It's time to go to the text and start our meditations. Important note. The rest of the manuscript of "Genesis according to the ontological Tradition" was given in courses on the ontological Kabbalah and in books.

La Genèse selon la tradition ontologique par Carlo Suarés - 3e millinaire

Skype : vendredi 14 dicembre ` 21 h - Eveil et philosophie, blog de Jo si Le Roy WEI WU WEI ARCHIVES : PHOTOS Google Image Result for http://weiwuwei.mysite.com/wei.jpg Google Image Result for https://www.azquotes.com/public/pictures/authors/c8/65/c8653518121869f40d4e3c3765223308/53b15e1103b30_wei_wu_wei.jpg Google Image Result for http://p9.storage.canalblog.com/96/44/191716/65531340.jpg Wei Wu Wei - Wikipedia WWW, Reni Fouiri, Robert Linssen, Francine Fouiri, Natacha (ipouse de WWW), Douglas Harding - 3e millinaire