Enlightenment

Excerpts from "Enlightenment"

Notes on these excerpts:

"Enlightenment" is the title of a book published by the Yonan Codex Foundation in which the Khabouris (or Khaboris) Manuscript is translated from its original Aramaic into English. However, there is a marked distinction to this translation when compared to traditional translations of similar historical documents (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), in that the objective of the Foundation is to convey the subtle and often very profound "hidden" meaning of the words, in accordance with the true symbolism contained in the Aramaic "mind", in the Aramaic language structure itself, as well as the "cultural heritage" and society of its original authors.

In other words, their intent is to convey the true "meaning" and "symbolism" of the writings as intended by their authors, in keeping with the cultural and philosophical thinking of the Aramaic society of the time, rather than to simply exchange the equivalent words from one language into another.

Naturally, in doing this, there is a great deal of faith put into the knowledge of those persons actually performing the "interpretation", and the Foundation went to great pains in order to make this process as scientifically valid as possible. The details of that part of the process will not be included here (as they are in the complete text) since that is not our objective, but for those who are interested in this, you will find that information in the book. (Links to the book can be found at the end of this page).

As is probably obvious, an undertaking of this type and the results thereof cannot be "proven" and there will be "errors" of judgment and certainly many different opinions as to their validity; however, we neither endorse nor deny those; we simply present them as they appear in the book, leaving it up to each individual to make his or her choice in accepting them or not. And that is as it should be.

Another comment we would like to make regarding these writings is that although the author makes extensive mention of Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, and of Aramaic as the “language of Jesus”, there is some dispute as to the accuracy of these statements among biblical scholars. Likewise, there is a rising dispute among different scholars as to the "true" New Testament, whether its origin is the Greek and Latin translations from which the St. James Version came, or whether the Aramaic versions (such as this one) are "truer" to the original. In addition, there is considerable dispute as to the original language in which the Gospel of Matthew was written; Greek, Aramaic, or Latin, creating the same controversy as with the rest of the New Testament. In fact, there are differing scholarly opinions as to the age of the Khabouris manuscript itself. Therefore we do not wish to endorse nor deny any theory or school of thought related to these particular aspects of the document, as that is not our purpose or area of expertise. By using this translation as a source of information we simply wish to convey these invaluable teachings, and for that purpose it is not relevant whether they came from Jesus, or whether Jesus spoke Aramaic, or whether the Greek/Latin or Aramaic/Syriac versions are closer to the original scriptures. In no way do we wish to offend the proponents of either position, and we present this information with the utmost respect for both opinions. Bear in mind, however, that this is a translation of portions of the New Testament, and as such, they clearly are directly related to, by, and about Jesus and the Christian faith.

Notes by the author of these excerpts are in (parentheses and italics).

Excerpts from: 

ENLIGHTENMENT

Enlightenment From The Aramaic

Selected Passages

From

The Khabouris Manuscript

An Ancient Text

Of the Syriac New Testament

Scribed in Aramaic

By Sadook de Mar Shimun

Copyright^© 1970, 1974

The Yonan Codex Foundation

Atlanta Georgia

Introduction

“There is, indeed, GOOD NEWS at hand.”

The Aramaic language presents an imagery unknown to the western mind but well known to the mind of the East. Aramaic was the lingua-franca to the Persian Empire, which stretched from the Mediterranean to the Great Wall of China for more than a thousand years before and after the birth of Jesus. The Aramaic language, unlike all other languages on earth, has no known place of beginning nor does it appear to have ever gone through any evolutionary period. It is as if it sprang to life fully matured: fully grown. An easterner  speaking Aramaic could walk 4,000 miles and communicate with everybody he met. Carried upon the imagery of the Aramaic, the Zoroastrian religion grew to its full flower. It is the language of most of the prophets in the Judeo-Christian faith. It is the language of Jesus. Its phonics is the language of Mohammed and the Koran. And it is, of course, the language of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls.

Its Imagery and capacity for communicating the subtleties of religion after this record of use, and of success, cannot be disputed. However, its difficulty of comprehension for a western intelligence is extremely great. Perhaps this difficulty underlies the fact so poetically phrased by Kipling…

“East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.”

(As with most languages, the construction of Aramaic involves the use of suffixes and prefixes attached to a root word. In the Aramaic, however, unlike with most western languages, the suffixes do not change the meaning of the root word, but rather add additional significance to it). In Aramaic syntax, the suffix “-oota” indicates the concept designated by the root word is then human action, active human judgment and behavior. Thus “-oota” added to the root word “sney” indicates malicious, vicious human judgment and behavior. The suffix “-ta” indicates the root concept is a present mind-set or attitude, a force on the mind exercising a control function over what can be perceived, what can be stored in or recalled from memory and what can be used in judgment formation. The Beatitudes, good attitudes, in Matthew carry this “-ta” suffix indicating the beneficial traits recited stem from a mind-set or sets, the controlling forces within the mind predictive and causal to this resulting judgment or behavior.

Modern psychology has discovered two distinctive types of mind-sets exercising control. One type is goals, objectives or desires, what one wants to do. A second and  more pervasive mind set is that controlling what is cued or triggered into use by the goal selected data. An examination of the Beatitudes shows both types of controlling mind sets, that is goals and cue controls, to be designated by the “-ta” suffix. Thus in the translation text, the English word “Attitude” is faithful to the Aramaic meaning of “-ta” so as to include both the data selection controls and cue controls.

In the western mind Sigmund Freud was more than entitled to the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the subconscious mind. Apparently, for untold thousands of years before the birth of Jesus, the existence of the subconscious mind and its functioning was so well known to the Aramaic speaking people that it was a part of their syntax and grammar.

A translation of the Aramaic teachings of Jesus into western imagery, such as English, which preserves these psychological distinctions inherent in the words actually used by Jesus himself gives to the western mind newer and deeper insights into his words. This is a new “good news”, for “good news” is the meaning of that splendid Aramaic word applied so many years ago to His teachings. For the first time, the western mind can easily see, hear, and understand the psychology taught by Jesus.

Truly, G-d moves in mysterious ways. Until the discovery of the subconscious in 1898, (and it's general acceptance probably more than 50 years later), there was no way for the western mind to intellectually understand the rules for sound mind development and management contained in the Aramaic teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Without the public acceptance of the science of psychology, there would be no way to communicate the psychological teachings of Jesus from His native Aramaic. One may well wonder what other wisdoms are in that "Purest Truth ever made known on earth", waiting only for us to discover the subject before we may understand that He has explained it.

Who knows? Perhaps someone has just received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of a subject which, seventy years from now, we will find has been explained in these ancient teachings.

A physical examination of the Yonan Codex reveals the unfortunate fact that both the front and back pages of this remarkable document have been replaced with text written on paper instead of the original hide. This was a crucial absence of antiquity and authenticity since the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of St. Matthew was on the paper pages rather than on the hide pages, whose antiquity and authenticity were thought by many to exceed that of any New testament manuscript then known. The particular portions missing represented an important part of the transcription of the only gospel preached in Aramaic, the only gospel which substantially all scholars, both eastern and western, agree was first written in Aramaic. Accordingly, the Foundation set out to acquire the text of the Gospel of St. Matthew in an ancient Aramaic New testament inscribed on the original hide.

The Foundation was fortunate in securing in 1966 an Aramaic New Testament now known as the Khabouris Manuscript in which almost all of the text of the Gospel according to St. Matthew is presented on the original animal skin. No claim as to its age has been made by the Foundation, for no claim need be made. The news presented here is not on the antiquity of the manuscript, but the totality and accuracy of the psychological wisdom expressed in the Aramaic syntax and concepts.

The history of the Khabouris Manuscript is unknown. It was secured by the Yonan Codex Foundation by gift from two Americans, who are thought to have secured it from the members of an ancient religious sect known to modern scholars as Nestorian. This sect is a surviving remnant of the See of Babylon of the Church of the East. It is thought by some to have been out of the library of a small church atop one of the mountains of Kurdistan. The contents of this library were seized by Turkish authorities in 1966 and are now in Ankara, Turkey, as per announcement in the Istanbul Gazette of June 11, 1966, complete with pictures of the church and some of the documents then in hand.

The Aramaic language comprehends psychology so completely, it utilizes a syntax which portrays the working relationship between mind sets, perception, mind structures, reason, judgment, entities of mind, human attitudes and human behavior. Also, Aramaic does not distinguish verbally between the mental and the physical. The word for “near” in Aramaic includes the mentally near as well as the physically near. Nor does the Aramaic verbally distinguish between a cause and its effect. The same word signifies both the cause and its effect. Such thoughts as these did not exist in the Sanskrit, nor do they exist in any of the descendant languages such as Latin, Greek, English, or any other western languages.

(in the translated texts) One cue or word left undisturbed is the Aramaic symbol “naphsha” which appears as “life”, “soul”, “self”, and “itself” in English and Greek texts. This word (like others) is left in its original sound, for all attempts to change it into English symbolism failed. The word is a philosophy involving life, law, cognition, physical health and the harmony of human actions and affairs with divine origin and active force. There is no word clearly cuing such a thought or concept or idea in western culture, so it is left in its original dignity.

Another symbol left in the original Aramaic sound is “rukha d’koodsha” not because its literal meaning is not available, but because of the degree of theological conflict on the concept illustrated. This sound triggers the third unity of the Trinity, denial of which is the unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:32). This is the entity which is a part of G-d, and which must be worshipped (John 4:23-24) and unconditionally loved and trusted. It is this which breaks off the effects of error and causes us to be mindful of the rules by which we should live and think (John 14:26).

With such great importance placed by Jesus upon understanding Rukha d’koodsha, Foundation scholars felt it advisable to use the original Aramaic symbol. Ancient symbolic pictures from Egypt, South America, and elsewhere depict the use or action of four elemental forces in the creation of the universe and all that is therein. Man, augmenting his created sensory equipment with all manner of created devices, has as yet been unable to sense or perceive any of these four forces or major energies which are said to constitute the fundamental energies creative of the physical universe and life. For instance, it is well known that the stars are expanding outward at tremendous velocities from a central point of beginning despite gravitational attraction, each for the other, which contradicts their outward rush. Some immense originating expulsive force of energy initiated their outward journey which still continues despite the contrary tug of gravity for billions of years. Man’s created mind, using created constituents has been unable to locate or contact such an initiating force, but can observe the fact it existed by observing the outward flight of the stars. As with the expulsive force, the gravity force cannot be sensed directly by man’s mind. All man can do is observe its effect and thus affirm its existence. A third force appears to operate in the physical area untouched by the sensing equipment of man. Something associated with heat appears to prevent the orbiting electron or a free electron from joining the nucleus of the hydrogen atom despite the pull of the opposite electrical charge. Perhaps that same force lifted the electron out of an inert neutron so as to form hydrogen. If so, this force is the creator of chemistry and chemical reactions and the father of plant and animal life. While undetected, there is no doubt as to the existence of this force, for no matter how low we cool hydrogen, or how many electrons we spray upon it, the center proton refuses to accept an electron and remains hydrogen, the beginning unit of matter as we know it. Again, man cannot directly contact this force, only sense its impact in the material world.

Rukha stands for these three forces and various invisible but material forces such as wind, magnetism and electricity. As Rukha d’koodsha, it represents man’s undetectable and yet tangible force upon the mind of man, a force from G-d for that divinely intended for man, a fourth force which man cannot contact and as yet cannot fully perceive to exist.

Another symbol left in the original Aramaic sound is “Kenoota”, human behavior and judgment which we would describe as just and fair. Justness is a slightly different concept in western thought, being a finite measurable result or symptom, whereas Kenoota is not only the result, it is also the cause behind the result. It is the judgment and behavior which produces justness, as well as the just judgment and behavior produced.

Another unique symbol in Aramaic is “Khooba”, the love we are told to have for our enemies (Matthew 5:44). The concept to be cued by Khooba did not exist in western thought until psychological advances uncovered the controlling force of a set of mind. This love is an attitude, a mind set, which includes the desire for unconditional affection for the other and the cue control set which causes what is good about the other to be perceived, causes that which is fair and just in the circumstances to come to mind and causes perception of the wholesome desires and objectives of the other. Being only a mind set or attitude, khooba does not include reasoning, judgment or action, only the controlling sets which, if sufficiently maintained, fill memory with wholesome information and ultimately produce the unconditional love for neighbor and G-d upon which all law hangs (Matthew 22:36-40).

It is helpful to distinguish the love designated by khooba from the love indicated by the word “rakhma”. Rakhma is the love for G-d and man upon which all law hangs. It is the love for others which produces being loved (Matthew 5:7). While it evolves from khooba and cannot be developed without khooba mind set love, the love represented by rakhma includes reason, thoughts, judgment and behavior. If one is successful in maintaining khooba for all men, rakhma, unconditional love for all others, will develop. With khooba the unique fact Will Rogers never met a man he did not like ceases to be unique and becomes a natural result anyone can reach. If one maintains mind set love, khooba, for others at all times, he will achieve unconditional judgmental and behavioral love, rakhma, for them as his motivation for such achievements will be continuous and his cue controls will fill his memory, perception, reason and judgment with what is good and lovable about the other until unconditional love is established.

Under ancient Aramaic understanding, the mind set, khooba, produces a particular judgment regarding another. Under modern understanding it appears to do so by controlling present perception and stocking memory. On the issue of “How should I feel about this person?”, khooba produces rakhma, unconditional love. On the question of “How should I treat this person?”, khooba produces the answer of Kenoota, justly and fairly. In response to the question of “How do I work with this person?”, khooba produces the answer of humility, cooperate with his good and wholesome desires and objectives.

With attention directed towards G-d, as it is in prayer, khooba produces a love of truth and a home in rukha. Thus the mind set, khooba, continuously maintained for neighbor and for G-d may be considered to produce the admirable qualities of human personality recited in the first five beatitudes.

Another Aramaic symbol not normal to western thought is “koodsha”, the Aramaic ancestor of the Hebrew word “kosher”. While kosher means proper as delineated by the Five Books of Moses (Torah, Pentateuch), koodsha is broader and means proper as determined by the will of G-d for man, both known and unknown. It represents that which is divinely intended for man.

Two Aramaic words, “khata” and “bisha”, are rendered as sin and evil respectively. However, the concepts cued by these words in the language of Jesus is not normal to western thought. Each is an archery term – sin or khata representing “missing the target”, and bisha or evil representing “off target” where the arrow went when it missed. Thus in Aramaic these words appear as “not right” as opposed to their normal meaning of positive wrongs. Increasingly, neural research, research into the mechanics of the mind, appears to indicate the fact that the human mind cannot utilize a right-wrong judgment approach. Apparently the mind must follow at any given moment a right-not right or use a wrong-not wrong evaluation system; that the mind’s scanning system may be set to pick up what is right or to pick up what is wrong, but cannot set both ways at the same instant. The Aramaic limitation of sin and evil as “not rights” appear to reflect understanding of this newly discovered facet of the mind’s mechanics. Which of these two sets of mind should be maintained is the subject of much of the text to follow.

The Yonan Codex Foundation

(NOTE: Only those verses cited above are transcribed here, in order of citation:)

Matthew - Chapter 12

12:32. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven but whoever does so against rukha d’koodsha, I say it will not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world which is to come (alma dated).

John – Chapter 4

4:23. But the  hour comes, and now has come, that there are they who worship His truth (shrari): worship the Father as rukha and also as truth, for the Father wants worshippers such as these.

4:24. Because G-d is rukha and those that worship Him as rukha and as complete truth (bashrara) are worshipping Him as they should.

John – Chapter 14

14:26. “Now that which breaks off the effects of sin (paracleta) is rukha d’koodsha., that which my Father will send through me (b’shme): it will instruct you in all matters, and it will bring into your minds all that I have said unto you.”

Matthew – Chapter 5

5:44. But, as opposed to this, I say unto you, have a mind set of love (akhiboo) for your adversaries and bless (barkho) him who curses you, be kind unto him who hates you; pray for those who govern you violently and persecute you.

5:46. For if you set your mind with love (makhbeetoun) for those who have it for you, what reward is there for you? Behold, do not your publicans (makhsii) do the same?

Matthew – Chapter 22

22:36. “Teacher, which is the greatest Commandment (pokdana) in the Law (namosa)?”

22:37. Then Jesus said to him. “You shall unconditionally love (tidrakhim) the Lord (marya) your G-d (alahak) in your entire mind and with your whole naphsha (naphshak) and in all your actions, and in all your thoughts (riayanak).

22:38. This is the greatest Commandment and takes precedence (kadmaya) over all.

22:39. And the second, which is like unto it, you shall unconditionally love (tirkham) your neighbor (karebak) as your naphsha (naphshak).

22:40. Upon these two Commandments hangs the Law (oreta) and its prophets (vanveyii).”

Matthew – Chapter 5

5:7. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those whose love is without conditions (rakhmanii); they will therefore receive unconditional love (rakhmii).

(We add here several more verses from Matthew, Chapter 5, as these are often cited in other materials on the subject.)

Matthew – Chapter 5

5:1. When Jesus saw the crowds, He ascended the mount and when He was seated His disciples drew near (kribo) to Him.

5:2. He began speaking and teaching them said:

5:3. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those whose home (maskenii) is in (b’-) rukha (rukh); theirs is a heavenly state (malkoota d’shmea).

5:4. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those mourning their wrongs (abilii); they shall be comforted (nitbeyoon).

5:5. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those with humility (makikhii); they will gain (nartoun) the earth.

5:6. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those who hunger and thirst for justness (Kenoota); they shall attain it.

5:7. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those whose love is without conditions (rakhmanii); they will therefore receive unconditional love (rakhmii).

5:8. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those without fault (dadcean) in their minds (b’libhoun); they will see (nikhazoun) G-d (Alaha).

5:9. “A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those serving (abdey) the peace of G-d (shlama); they will be called the children of G-d (Alaha).

5:10. A heavenly attitude is theirs (touveyhoun), those being scorned because of their justness (kenoota); theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven (malkoota dashmeya).

5:11. “A heavenly attitude is yours (touveyhoun), when they harass (radpean) you and scorn you and deceitfully (b’dagaloota) speak against you every evil word (mila) because of being with me (mitlate).

5:12 “Rejoice, be happy (khdau), be joyful at the increase of your reward in heaven (shmeya): for in such manner were harassed (rdapo) the prophets before you.

(We include here selected excerpts from the Glossary of the book, as it is important in striving to achieve comprehension of these writings to better understand the "real" meaning of the written words. In addition, as Aramaic is a language so very different from our own in so many ways, the glossary is helpful in aiding the western mind in this process of comprehension.)

Selected Glossary

Naphsha

There can be no doubt that the concept to be cued by naphsha is one of the most fundamental of all the Aramaic comprehensions utilized by the prophets.

In the Aramaic teachings of Jesus, He states all law hangs upon two Commandments as follows:

“Love the Lord your G-d in your entire mind, and with your whole naphsha, and in all your actions, and in all your thoughts.”

“Love your neighbor as your naphsha.” (Matthew 22:36-39)

The first appearance of naphsha here is usually rendered as “soul”. The second is rendered as “self”. The concept “soul”, while of Greek origin, is a cornerstone of Christian teaching. The concept “self” is a cornerstone of psychiatry and psychology. Usually these two words, self and soul, are seen to be somewhat conflicting, yet under the Aramaic language they are the same word; “naphsha”.

Clearly, the concept behind naphsha is unknown in the west. Scholars have long sought to unify “soul” and “self” without success. If the meaning of naphsha could be ascertained, the unification is obtained, for the word is source of both “soul” and “self” in western ethics.

To assist in defining the concept it is helpful to review its uses by one who fully understood it. Fortunately, it is used many times by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, the only Gospel first preached and written in the Aramaic.

General familiarity with the style used by Jesus in discourse is helpful in gaining insight into a term He used, as is also some of the peculiarities of the Aramaic thought patterns. Throughout His teaching, Jesus would state a truth well understood by his listeners, and then expand from it in logical steps to make His point. With this in mind, several uses of naphsha occur which Jesus apparently felt would be fully understood by those listening.

After healing the leper, Jesus is reported to have told him:

“Go show your naphsha to the priests…” Matthew 8:4

Here He was using naphsha with the assumption it was understood by an ordinary person. In this use, it appears to mean the healed appearance of the former leper. It should be kept in mind that the Aramaic does not usually employ a verbal distinction between a cause and its effect. While naphsha related to physical effect here, the clearing of leprosy, it could literally mean an underlying control of the body which caused this effect and convey exactly the same understanding.

Again in Matthew 12:25, Jesus uses naphsha with the apparent belief it was understood by his listeners. Here He states:

“Every kingdom which you divide against its naphsha will decay, and every house and city which shall be divided against its naphsha will not last.”

With this use, naphsha shows as the basic control, the fundamental controlling source of life for a city, a house, or a kingdom. Here the word appears related to a controlling source or cause, and not to its effect. The breadth and scope of the controlling cause, the life force of the city, house or kingdom designated by naphsha seems to be total, for to run counter to it is death for a city, house, or kingdom. In Matthew 9:21, it is stated by the writer of the Gospel with the apparent belief he would be understood, that a woman desiring to be healed of a twelve-year flow of blood, was saying in her naphsha, “Even if I only touch the fringe of His garment, I shall be healed.” Immediately thereafter, she did exactly what she was saying in her “naphsha” , indicating the set or goal within her naphsha controlled her behavior.

From the Aramaic Gospel of John, which was first stated in the Greek, the concept “will” is tied to naphsha with these words attributed to Jesus:

“I cannot from my own selfhood (naphsha) undertake anything, but even while I am hearing, I condemn and my decision is just for I do not seek that my will be served, but rather the will of Him who sent me.” (John 5:30)

Clearly, there is in this statement recognition of naphsha as the source for control of judgment and comprehension, but not an initiating control. Also indicated is the fact that naphsha is subservient and must yield or alter its effect to conform to a person’s will, to a person’s goals.

From the above uses it is abundantly clear that naphsha, at the time of Jesus, was generally understood as the control entity behind the physical, mental, and behaving self. With the unification of cause and effect implicit in Aramaic and the unification of a control course for the mental and the physical implicit in these uses, naphsha, therefore stands for all mental and physical conditions and the control source of mental and physical development. This span of meaning lays the basis for its translations into the varied English words, “soul”, “self”, “itself”, and “life”.

Also it may be noted that there is in the above quoted uses the implied suggestion that naphsha may have a quality of performance meaning. With the leper, the instruction to show his naphsha suggests his naphsha might have changed for the better, or might have improved its performance. With respect to the naphsha of the city, house and kingdom, an implication of correctness, of truth in addition to controlling power, envelopes the meaning of the word. This implication of quality of effect, but mixed with an intrinsic tie to truth is borne out in other statements, but these are instructional statements of Jesus, apparently intended to inform, to teach, rather than to communicate through use of a mutually understood term.

In Matthew 6:25, the quality of performance, fact of control and tie to truth elements of naphsha all appear where He gives instructions on making things easier for naphsha:

“Do not burden your naphsha over what you shall eat or what you shall drink or what clothes you shall wear. Is not naphsha greater than nourishment, and your life greater than garments?”

In line with the thought of Matthew 6:25, He indicates in Matthew 6:33 the results of achieved by naphsha varies in conformity with the propriety of an individual’s goal or set of will, where in Matthew 6:33 He states:

“Seek before everything the Kingdom of G-d”

This implication, that naphsha, if it is to function properly, must be accompanied by a proper alignment of human will, is in no way denied by any of the communicating uses of the word.

In Matthew 11:29 He states:

“Take upon yourself the yoke upon me and learn from me that I am serene and peaceful in mind, and you will find for yourself serenity for your naphsha.”

This is an instructional speech and indicates one’s naphsha may experience unnecessary difficulty and conflict unless will and goals be conformed to certain rules or guidelines. However, there is no suggestion here that a naphsha with burdens is less a naphsha than one without burdens.

In Matthew 10:39, it is indicated that a naphsha operating without these certain guidelines shall cease to operate as a naphsha. There He states:

“He who finds his own naphsha shall lose it, but he who loses his own naphsha for my way shall find it.”

In comprehending this passage, it should be kept in mind that Aramaic offers no distinction between a cause and its effect. The finding and losing may be construed as losing the effect of naphsha and gaining the effect of naphsha.

To lose the effect of one’s naphsha, then, appears to be the result if that naphsha is itself not under a will serving proper guidelines. However, it should be noted that nothing so far indicated positively that one’s naphsha or a city’s naphsha is destroyed by any such failure. Instead, it would appear that its effect may be lost causing difficulties of a physical or mental nature if there be no proper conformity of will, but the entity itself would appear to continue to exist, even though disconnected from control and contact with “self”. Thus the quality implications surrounding these uses of the word naphsha appear to relate not so much to the quality of the entity as to its achieved results, with the case of a poor naphsha reflecting not so much the quality of the entity as to its achieved results. The case of poor results is laid not to a poor quality naphsha, but to an improper will or goal.

In Matthew 23:12, we see another instructional section on the concept naphsha. There he states:

“He who exalts his naphsha shall be humbled, and he who humbles his own naphsha shall be exalted.”

Clearly, in this instruction, the quality of human performance is directly tied to the quality of what is willed over naphsha, that fundamental organizing and controlling core to mind and body.

These instances of the use of the Aramaic concept naphsha by one who well understood its meaning gives us a fairly precise understanding of the term.

Naphsha is the controlling core, the managing agent, the source of physical and mental, development, and may be used to designate the results of its operation. The term may be employed to any functioning entity involving human beings, as, for instance, a house, city or country. While every human has a naphsha by virtue of his existence, the results achieved by this controlling entity will be impaired by its subordination to an improper will, in which event, behavior, ideation, and physical well-being shall deteriorate.

Looking into the realm of psychology, a few points can now be clarified with respect to this control entity for humans and human endeavor. Naphsha apparently can control the mind and body which are themselves largely controlled At the subconscious level. Naphsha is, therefore, located within the unconscious, below and behind the directly controlling functions of the subconscious. This is, of course, an absolute necessity from a time sequence standpoint if naphsha participated in the physical formation of the subconscious, as is implied in the above uses of the term.

Hence, being a party of the lower unconscious, it is not usually capable of direct contact with our reasoning minds nor can our reasoning minds directly contact it.

Naphsha cannot execute its natural control function properly if the controlling will is not harmonious with proper guidelines. It would, however, produce quality results with mind and body if the controlling will is harmonious with proper guidelines.

The fact of rukha d’koodsha exerting its outward force in harmony with divine will and human desires exerting their force inward generates an interface where they  meet if the two sets of forces are not in harmony. What is scribed or formed upon that interface within a human mind is the history of its life. Scribing truly so as to harmonize the whole mind and man’s desires with the rukha force is, theologically speaking, the purpose of human life. Man can no more sense or directly contact this rukha force within him with his instruments than he can contact the three creative forces who’s impact in the physical world may be noted (see introduction). In fact man appears to have difficulty sensing the existence of rukha d’koodsha in human life.
 

Selected Glossary Continued

Links to the book:

• Enlightenment... from the Aramaic - Yonan Codex Foundation - Dan MacDougald Jr. (Editor)
• Enlightenment: Selected Passages Form the Khabouris Manuscript - Original 1993 Edition

Back to: The Khaboris Manuscript

If you came here from "The Forgiveness Process", Return here: Common 9

Feedback  -  Site Map  -  Search  - Forums

By purchasing your books or CDs at Amazon.com using our link, you will help support this website. Thank you!

\ Copyright © 2002-2008 ILoveULove.com \
Last updated: 08/15/08