Enoch, Nephilim, Sons of God, Daughters of Men

Sons of God, Daughters of Men reposted from the mysterious musings of brother blue which i'm rather sure he found in I.D.E. Thomas's work available on amazon.com

In 1947 an Arab boy tending his sheep accidentally discovered an ancient cave near the Dead Sea. In it were found a priceless collection of ancient scrolls which soon became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Qumran Texts. Among these writings was one known as the Genesis Apocryphon. At first it was thought to be the long lost Book of Lamech. Although the scroll consisted of a speech by Lamech and a story about some of the patriarchs from Enoch to Abraham; it was not that book.

According to the Bible, Lamech was the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah. He was the ninth of the ten patriarchs of the antedeluvian world.

It is significant, however, that the Genesis Apocryphon mentions the Nephilim, and makes reference to the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" introduced in Genesis 6. The Apocryphon also elaborates considerably on the succinct statements found in the Bible, and provides valuable insights into the way these ancient stories were interpreted by the ancient Jews.

The copy of the Genesis Apocryphon discovered at Qumran dates back to the 2nd century B.C., but it was obviously based on much older sources. When discovered in 1947, it had been much mutilated from the ravages of time and humidity. The sheets had become so badly stuck together that years passed before the text was deciphered and made known. When scholars finally made public its content, the document confirmed that celestial beings from the skies had landed on planet Earth. More than that, it told how these beings had mated with Earth-women and had begat giants.

Is this story myth or history, fable or fact? Specialized research has revealed that many ancient legends have a basis in fact. But to answer the question, let us consult the most authoritative document known to man--the Bible.

In Genesis 6:1-4 the "sons of God" are captivated by the beauty of the "daughters of men." They subsequently marry them and produce an offspring of giants known as the Nephilim. Genesis goes on to say that these Nephilim were "mighty men" and "men of renown."

"Sons of God"? "Daughters of men"? What sort of beings were these? Were they human or did they belong to an alien species from outer space?

IDENTIFYING THE SONS OF GOD

There is no problem in identifying the "daughters of men" for this is a familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem lies with the "sons of God." Three major interpretations have been offered to shed light on this cryptic designation.

First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that "sons of God" meant "nobles" or "magnates." Hardly anyone today accepts this view.

Second, some interpret the "sons of God" as fallen angels. These were enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them. Many reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that angels from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from Earth? Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right heresy.

Third, many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God" are the male descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:

"The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain." (1)

However, in spite of the excellent pedigree of the proponents of this theory, their argument is not convincing. Their interpretation is pure eisegesis--they are guilty of reading into the text what is obviously not there.

FALSE EXEGESIS

Their interpretation fails on other grounds as well. At no time, before the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the sin of "mixed marriages." It is impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human race many times over!

The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." If by "sons of God" is meant "sons of Seth," then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil.

The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them--that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly godly sons of Seth? Even Seth's own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning "mortal" or "frail." And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself?

Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this verse: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah." Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: "Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah." If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line of Seth is non- existent. The truth of the matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer: "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Genesis 6:12).

In the Old Testament, the designation "sons of God" (bene Elohim) is never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is known--angels. And the term "sons of God" applies to both good and bad angels. These are the beings of whom Augustine wrote:

"Like the gods they have corporeal immortality, and passions like human beings." (2)

The designation "sons of God" is used four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, "and the form of the fourth is like the son of God." The translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, "like a son of the gods." Since Jesus had not yet become the "only begotten son" of God, this "son" would have had to be angelic.

Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time!

In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the "sons of God" came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan--a further implication that the "sons of God" must have been angels.

Since the designation "sons of God" is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.

SONS OF GOD: THREE CATEGORIES

In the New Testament, born-again believers in Christ are called the children of God or the sons of God (Luke 3:38, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1). Dr. Bullinger in the Companion Bible states: "It is only by the divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called 'a son of God.'" This explains why every born-again believer is a son of God. It explains also why Adam was a son of God. Adam was specifically created by God, "in the likeness of God made He him" (Genesis 5:1). Adam's descendants, however, were different; they were not made in God's likeness but in Adam's. Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3). Adam was a "son of God," but Adam's descendants were "sons of men."

Lewis Sperry Chafer expresses this in an interesting way when he states:

"In the Old Testament terminology angels are called sons of God while men are called servants of God. In the New Testament this is reversed. Angels are the servants and Christians are the sons of God." (3)

It is thus clear that the term "sons of God" in the Bible is limited to three categories of beings: angels, Adam and believers. All three are special and specific creations of God. As for the use of the term in Genesis 6, since it cannot possibly refer to Adam nor believers in Christ, we conclude that it has to refer to the angels whom God had created.

LIGHT FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT

Two New Testament passages shed further light on Genesis 6. They are Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4. These verses indicate that at some point in time a number of angels fell from their pristine state and proceeded to commit a sexual sin that was both unusual and repugnant. Jude 6-7 states:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..."

These angels not only failed to keep their original dominion and authority, but they "left their own habitation." Habitation is a significant word: it means "dwelling place" or "heaven." And the addition of the Greek word "idion" ("their own") means that they left their own private, personal, unique possession. (4) Heaven was the private, personal residence of the angels. It was not made for man but for the angels. This is why the ultimate destination of the saints will not be Heaven but the new and perfect Earth which God will create (Revelation 21:1-3). Heaven is reserved for the angels, but as for the beings referred to in Jude 6-7, they abandoned it.

Not only did these angels leave Heaven, they left it once-for- all. The Greek verb "apoleipo" is in the aorist tense, thus indicating a once-for-all act. By taking the action they did, these angels made a final and irretrievable decision. They crossed the Rubicon. Their action, says Kenneth Wuest, "was apostasy with a vengeance." (5)

As to the specific sin of these angels, we are given the facts in Jude 7. As in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it was the sin of "fornication" and it means "going after strange flesh." "Strange" flesh means flesh of a different kind (Greek "heteros"). To commit this particularly repugnant sin, the angels had to abandon their own domain and invade a realm that was divinely forbidden to them. Says Wuest:

"These angels transgressed the limits of their own natures to invade a realm of created beings of a different nature." (6)

Alford confirms:

"It was a departure from the appointed course of nature and seeking after that which is unnatural, to other flesh than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire."

The mingling of these two orders of being, was contrary to what God had intended, and summarily led to God's greatest act of judgment ever enacted upon the human race.

TEMPTING THE ANGELS

Another New Testament verse may have bearing on Genesis 6. In I Corinthians 11:10, Paul instructs that a woman should cover her head as a sign of subjection to her husband, and also "because of the angels." This observation has intrigued commentators through the years. Why this sudden reference to angels? Could it be a reference to what happened in Genesis 6 where angels succumbed to the inducements and physical charm of the women of Earth? Obviously, Paul believed that an uncovered woman was a temptation even to angels. William Barclay mentions an old rabbinic tradition which alleges that it was the beauty of the women's long hair that attracted and tempted the angels in Genesis. (6)

STRANGE PARENTAGE

The off-spring of this union between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were so extraordinary that it indicates an unusual parentage. In no way could the progenitors of such beings be ordinary humans. Their mothers possibly could be human, or their fathers, but certainly not both. Either the father or the mother had to be superhuman. Only in such a way can one account for the extraordinary character and prowess of the off-spring.

God's law of reproduction, according to the biblical account of creation, is "everything after his kind." God's law makes it impossible for giants to be produced by normal parentage. To produce such monstrosities as the Nephilim presupposes super- natural parentage.

GIANTS?

"Nephilim" is a Hebrew word translated in the Authorized King James version as "giants." "There were giants in the earth in those days" (Genesis 6:4). It is true that they were giants in more senses than one. However, the word Nephilim does not mean "giants." It comes from the root "naphal," meaning "fallen ones," and most modern versions of the Bible have left the word "Nephilim" untranslated.

When the Greek Septuagint was made, "Nephilim" was translated as "gegenes." This word suggests "giants" but actually it has little reference to size or strength. "Gegenes" means "earth born." The same term was used to describe the mythical "Titans" -- being partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin. (7)

The Hebrew and the Greek words do not exclude the presence of great physical strength. Indeed, a combined supernatural and natural parentage would imply such a characteristic. Angels, according to Scripture, are known for their power. They are often referred to as "sons of the Mighty" (Psalm 103:20). Therefore, if the ones who sired them were strong and mighty, it could be assumed that their offspring were likewise.

No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed marriages (believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in great strength and might. No evidence can be found anywhere in history for that matter. Such an interpretation poses impossible assumptions.

When the word "Nephilim" is used in Numbers 13:33, the question of size and strength is explicit. Here we are left in no doubt as to their superhuman prowess. When Joshua's spies reported back from Canaan, they called certain of the inhabitants of Canaan "giants." "And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

Some commentators have speculated that the Nephilim of Numbers 13 belonged to a second eruption of fallen angels, since the earlier Nephilim had been destroyed in the Flood. And they see an allusion to this in Genesis 6:4, where it states that "there were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Could it be that the "after that" was a reference to the Nephilim found in Canaan during the Israelite entry into the land? If so, it could explain why the Lord commanded the total extermination of the Canaanites, as He had earlier ordered the near annihilation of the human race.

NEPHILIM -- NO RESURRECTION

The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will not participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary mortals. Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word translated "deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have saved a lot of misinterpretation if the translators had left the word as it was in the original. The verse actually reads: "Dead, they shall not live; Rephaim, they shall not rise." The Rephaim are generally understood to be one of the branches of the Nephilim, and God's Word makes it clear that they are to partake in no resurrection. But with humans it is different: all humans will be resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29).

We have already seen that the Greek Version of the Old Testament (The Septuagint) translated "Nephilim" as "gegenes;" we shall now inquire how it translates "sons of God." In some of the manuscripts it is left as "sons of God," but in the others-- including the Alexandrian text--it is rendered by the word "angelos." This text was in existence in the time of Christ, but there is no indication that He ever corrected or queried it. Can we not assume from His silence that He agreed with the translation!

RAPE OF THE TEXT

Having studied all the arguments in favor of "sons of Seth," one concludes that the only argument that is valid among them is that of rationality. "Sons of Seth" is an interpretation that is more palatable to human reason. Reason can never subscribe to the incredible notion that fallen angels could have sex relations with women of Earth. Angels have no physical bodies! They do not marry! They belong to an entirely different species of being! The mind revolts against such absurdity. So, what does one do? Settle, of course, for an easy, rational interpretation--sons of Seth and daughters of Cain. But what if the meaning of Scripture is clearly otherwise? There is the rub! Scripture is clearly otherwise! To impose a human interpretation at the expense of the obvious meaning of the divine Word, is a rape of the biblical text. Furthermore, when one deals with the world of the supernatural, rationality is never an argument.

JEWISH AND PATRISTIC FATHERS

The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:

"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)

Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)

Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)

The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)

Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)

Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the sexual union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated.

THE ULTIMATE SIN

God made man in His own image, the highest of all His earthly creations. While God said that everything He made was good, He considered man very good. Man had been made for fellowship with God Himself, but he soon turned his back upon his Maker and worshipped the creature more than the Creator. Before many generations, the human race was being polluted by this abominable union with demons. It seemed that Hell and Earth were in league together against the God of Heaven. God's righteous anger was such that He regretted having made man.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man. ..."(Genesis 6:5-6)

It was specifically because of this ultimate sin that God brought about a deluge of such magnitude that man and beast were drowned from the face of the Earth. In the words of old Joseph Hall:

"The world was so grown foul with sin, that God saw it was time to wash it with a flood: and so close did wickedness cleave to the authors of it, that when they were washed to nothing, yet it would not wash off, yea, so deep did it stick in the very grain of the earth, that God saw it meet to let it soak long under the waters." (14)

WAS NOAH IMMUNE?

Why Noah and his immediate family were the only ones immune from this great judgment is significant. Genesis 6:9 says, "Noah was a just man." He stood out as an example of righteousness and godliness in a perverse age. Like Enoch before him, Noah also "walked with God." But there was another reason why Noah was spared, one that seems to have escaped most commentators. Genesis 6:9 says that Noah was "perfect in his generation." Does this mean moral and spiritual perfection? Hardly. Genesis 9:20-23 disproves any such perfection. What, then, does the Bible mean by calling him "perfect"? The Hebrew word is "tamiym" and comes from the root word "taman." This means "without blemish" as in Exodus 12:5, 29:1, Leviticus 1:3. Just as the sacrificial lamb had to be without any physical blemish, so Noah's perfection. In its primary meaning, it refers not to any moral or spiritual quality, but to physical purity. Noah was uncontaminated by the alien invaders.

He alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. (15)

And again:

Noah's bloodline had remained free of genetic contamination. (16)

This implies, of course, that all the other families on Earth had been contaminated by the Nephilim. It also proves that the assault of Satan on the human race had been far more extensive than realized. It is no wonder that God pronounced such a universal fiat of judgment.

As for the fallen angels who participated in the abomination, God put them in custody "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). This is sometimes interpreted as Tartarus or the "nether realms" (2 Peter 2:4). This would also explain why some fallen angels are in custody and why others are free to roam the heavens and torment mankind.

Such a drastic punishment, both for men and angels, presupposed a drastic sin, something infinitely more evil and more sinister than mixed marriages. It was nothing less than the demonic realm attempting to pervert the human world. By genetic control and the production of hybrids, Satan was out to rob God of the people He had made for Himself.

If Satan had succeeded in corrupting the human race, he would have hindered the coming of the perfect Son of God, the promised "seed of the woman," who would defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Genesis 3:15). If Satan had by any means prevented that birth, he would obviously have averted his own doom. Satan did succeed to a large extent. It was for this reason that God drowned mankind in the Deluge.

ARE ANGELS SEXLESS?

Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.

Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. (17) But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in sexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even sexual activity and fathering children.

The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are sexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men. Finis Drake writes: "It is logical to say...that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, in as much as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair." (18)

Even in the next world, when the saints will dwell in their resurrection body and live forever, it does not imply that they will be sexless. The Bible teaches that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). No suggestion is made that they will be unsexed. Furthermore, Christ remained a man after His resurrection.

DEMONS AT LARGE

One other question has been raised. If the fallen angels who lusted after women of Earth in Genesis 6 have been interred in Tartarus with "everlasting chains," how does one explain the demons who have been operating since then? They seemed to have been quite active during the ministry of Jesus, and are busy again in our day. Following this reasoning, some share the conclusion of Kent Philpott:

However one might wish to interpret Genesis 6: 1-4 to link this passage with the verses in 2 Peter and Jude seems to post far more problems than it would solve. But 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 clearly assert that the rebellious angels are being kept prisoner in the "nether gloom." If they are prisoners, they could not very well function as the demons are described as functioning in the New Testament. (19)

But Philpott failed to see that there are two categories of fallen angels: Those cast out of Heaven with Lucifer, and who are still free to torment mankind; and those who fell the second time by committing carnal acts with the daughters of men. The spirits in this second category are those chained in the nether regions.

It seems clear to me that the "sons of God" are none other than fallen angels, and, because of their further sin of lusting after the "daughters of men," many were imprisoned by God. Both the near annihilation of the human race and the incarceration of the fallen angels in Tartarus indicate the magnitude of the sin they committed. By such drastic judgment, God saved the human race from a calamity worse than the physical death originally imposed upon them.

Notes:

l. Matthew Henry's Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961).
2. Aurelius Augustine, The City of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1949), Transl. Marcus Dods.
3. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume 2. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), p. 23.
4. Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek N.T (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), Vol. 4, p. 240.
5. Ibid., p. 240.
6. Ibid., p. 241.
7. Unger, Biblical Demonology (Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1957), p. 48.
8 W. F. Allbright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 226.
9. Bemard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952), p. 53.
10. Philo, DeGigantibus, pp. 58-60.
11. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8, pp. 85 and 273.
12. Ibid., p. 190.
13. Josephus, The Work of Flavius Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews (London: G. G. Rutledge), 1.3.1.
14. Joseph Hall, Contemplations (Otisville, Michigan: Baptist Book Trust, 1976), p. 10.
15. Companion Bible (Oxford University Press). Appendix 26.
16. The Gospel Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, (June 1978), No. 7.
17. Dr. Morgenstem, Hebrew Union College Annual, XIV, 29- 40,114ff.
18. Finis Dake, Annotated R,?ference Bible, p.63.
19. Kent Philpott, A Manual of Demonology and the Occult (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 77-78.



Article by BB

Return to Watcher Website
Angelic Conpsiracy and End Time Deception

Further UFO, Nephilim, Genesis 6 Resources:

  • G.H. Pember "Earth's Earliest Ages... Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy"
  • Khwaja Khadir and the Fountain of Life in the Tradition of Persian and Mughal Art

    Khwaja Khadir and the Fountain of Life in the Tradition of Persian and Mughal Art

    khidr.org

    This page doesn't appear to be an article and therefore may not display well in the Article View. You may want to switch to the Full Web Page view.

    If you know there should be an article here, help improve the article parser by reporting this page. Thanks!

    Khwaja Khadir and the Fountain of Life in the Tradition of Persian and Mughal Art

    Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, "What is Civilisation" and Other Essays, (Cambridge: Golgosova Press, 1989) pp. 157-167.

    In India, the Prophet, Saint, or Deity known as Khwaja Khizr (Khadir), Pir Badar, or Raja Kidar, is the object of a still surviving popular cult, common to Muslims and Hindus. His principal shrine is on the Indus near Bakhar, where he is worshipped by devotees of both persuasions; the cult is however hardly less widely diffused in Bihar and Bengal. In the Hindu cult, the Khwaja is worshipped with lights and by feeding Brahmans at a well, and alike in Hindu and Muslim practice, by setting afloat in a pond or river a little boat which bears a lighted lamp. Iconographically Khwaja Khizr is represented as an aged man, having the aspect of a faqir, clothed entirely in green[1] and moving in the waters with a 'fish' as his vehicle.

    The nature of Khwaja Khizr can be inferred from his iconography as outlined above, and also from the Indian legends. In the ballad of Niwal Dai, which is localized at Safidam[2] in the Panjab, Niwal Dai is the daughter of Vasuki, the chief of the Serpents. The Aryan Pandava Raja Pariksit has encountered Vasuki, and forced him to promise his daughter to him in marriage, though from Vasuki's point of view this is a disgraceful misalliance. Vasuki is then stricken with leprosy, owing to a curse pronounced by the Priest Siji[3] whose cows have been bitten by the Serpents. Niwal Dai undertakes to obtain for his healing the Water of Life (amrta), from the closed well which she alone can open, but which is in the domains of Raja Pariksit.[4] When she reaches the well, which is covered over by heavy stones, she moves these by her magic power, but the waters sink down out of reach; this is because Khwaja Khizr, their master, will not release them until Niwal Dai, whom none but her own parents Vasuki and his queen Padma have ever yet seen, permits herself to be seen; when Niwal Dai showed herself, then Khwaja Khizr 'sent the waters up bubbling'. Raja Pariksit, aroused by the sound, gallops to the well, and though Niwal Dai hides in her serpent form, forces her to put on her human aspect, and after a long argument at the well, convinces her that she is bound by the previous betrothal, and in due course marries her.[5]

    The scene at the well may also have been the original theme of the composition represented in a number of seventeenth and eighteenth century Mughal paintings, where a prince on horseback is shown at a well, from which a lady has drawn up water.[6] The motif of a dynasty originating in the marriage of a human King with a Nagini is widely diffused in India, and in the last analysis can always be referred back to the rape of Vac, the Apsaras or Virgin of the Waters whose origin is with the powers of darkness and whom the Father-Creator has not 'seen' before the transformation of darkness into light, in principle; in this connection it is noteworthy that in the ballad, Niwal Dai has never seen the Sun or Moon, and has been kept hidden in a whirlpool (bhaithri) until she comes forth to uncover the Well at the World's End, in which are the Waters of Life.[7] That she assumes a human form is her 'manifestation'. It will be realised, of course, that just as in the European parallels, where a mermaid, or the daughter of a magician, marries a human hero, so in the later Indian folk tales and romances the redactor may not have always fully 'understood his material'.

    Khwaja Khizr appears again in another Indian folk tale of a very archaic type, the Story of Prince Mahbub.[8] The king of Persia has a son by a concubine, who, in the absence of any other child, becomes the heir apparent. Subsequently the true queen becomes pregnant. The first prince fears that he will be displaced, invades the kingdom, slays his father, and usurps the throne. In the meantime the true queen escapes, and is cared for by a farmer; a son is born, who is called Mahbub, and the 'Darling of the World'. Later he goes alone to court, and becomes the victor in athletic contests, particularly as an archer. The people recognise his likeness to the late king.

    The Shrine of Khawaja Khizr, near Bukkur fort, 1838
    Identified by Jackson as a view of 'Hajee Ka Tau, an island just above the fort of Bukkur on the Indus', the sketch would appear to be of the tomb of the river saint Khwaja Khizr, regarded as having been built in 925 A.D. (A.H. 341). According to the legend recorded in the Chachnama, the tomb was built in gratitude by a Delhi merchant Shah Husain who, traveling down the Indus with his pretty daughter on their way to Mecca, was called upon by Dalurai (the Hindu ruler of Alor) to surrender the daughter. In her anxiety to avoid such an impious alliance, the girl prayed to Khwaja Khizr for deliverance and as she and her father sought to escape in a boat, the saint diverted the course of the Indus towards Rohri bringing the harassed father and daughter to safety. Khwaja Khizr, known also as the Jinda or living Pir, is said to be particularly protective of travelers.

    On his return home his mother tells him of his birth, and both set out on their travels in order to avoid the usurper's suspicion. Mother and son reach a desert land, and there in a mosque beside a mountain they meet a faqir who gives them bread and water that are inexhaustible, and two pieces of wood, one of which can serve as a torch, the other possessing this virtue, that within a radius of fourteen cubits from the place where it is held, the deepest sea will become fordable, and no more than a cubit in depth. As mother and son are then wading through the sea knee-deep, they meet with a ruby-bearing current.

    They cross the sea and reach India, where they sell one of the rubies at a great price. It comes into the hands of the king of that country. He finds out its source, and seeks the hero, who has in the meantime built a new and great palace by the seaside. Mahbub undertakes to procure more of the same kind. He sets out alone, lights the torch (this shows that he is about to enter a world of darkness), and aided by the rod traverses the sea till he reaches the ruby current. He follows it up until he finds its source in a whirlpool. He jumps in and falls down the black watery chimney until he touches solid ground and finds the waters flowing out from an iron gateway of a conduit.

    Passing through this he finds himself in a wonderful garden, in which is a palace. In this palace he finds a room in which is a freshly severed head, from which drops of blood are falling into a basin, and are carried out as rubies with the current into the conduit and so to the whirlpool and up into the sea. Twelve paris[9] then appear, take down the head, bring forth the trunk, lay the parts together, and taking up burning candles execute a dance round the couch, so swift that Mahbub can see only a circle of light. Then stooping over the bed, they wail 'How long, O Lord, how long? . . . When will the sun of hope arise on the darkness of our despair? Arise, O King, arise, how long will you remain in this deathlike trance?'[10]

    Then from the floor of the palace there rises up the form of the faqir previously mentioned, and now clad in garments of light. The pans bow down to him, and ask 'Khwaja Khizr, has the hour come?' The faqir, who is indeed none but the immortal Khwaja Khizr, explains to Mahbub that the corpse is his father's, who had been murdered by the usurper Kassab; Mahbub's ancestors have all been magi;[11] all have been buried in the under-water palace, but Mahbub's father has remained unburied, for none had performed his funeral rites; Mahbub, as son, should now do this- Mahbub accordingly makes prayer to Allah on behalf of his father's soul.

    Immediately the head is joined to the body, and the dead king rises up alive.[12] Khizr vanishes, and Mahbub returns to India with his father, who is thus reunited with the widowed queen. When the king of India comes for the rubies, Mahbub pricks his own finger, and the drops of blood falling into a cup of water become the required gems, for as Mahbub now knows, every drop of blood that flows in the veins of the kings of Persia is more precious than rubies. Mahbub marries the princess of India. An expedition to Persia dethrones the usurper Kassab, and his head is taken and hung in the underground palace, but every drop of blood becomes a toad.

    The true nature of Khwaja Khizr is already clearly indicated in the two stories summarised above, as well as in the iconography. Khizr is at home in both worlds, the dark and the light, but above all master of the flowing River of Life in the Land of Darkness: he is at once the guardian and genius of vegetation and of the Water of Life, and corresponds to Soma and Gandharva in Vedic mythology, and in many respects to Varuria himself, though it is evident that he cannot, either from the Islamic or from the later Hindu point of view be openly identified with the supreme deity. We shall find these general conclusions amply confirmed by further examinations of the sources of the Islamic legends of al-Khadir.

    In the Qur'an (Sura XVM, 59-81) occurs the legend of Musa's search for the Ma'jma 'al-Bahrain,[13] which is probably to be understood as a 'place' in the far west at the meeting of two oceans; Musa is guided by a 'servant of God', whom the commentators identify with al-Khadir, whose abode is said to be upon an island or on a green carpet in the midst of the sea?

    This story can be traced back to three older sources, the Gilgamesh epic, the Alexander Romances, and the Jewish legend of Elijah and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.[14] In the Gilgamesh epic the hero sets out in search of his immortal 'ancestor' Utnapishtim who dwells at the mouth of the rivers (ina pi narati), like Varuna whose abode is 'at the rivers' source', sindhunam upodaye. Rg Veda, VIII, 41, 2; his object being to be informed with respect to the 'plant-life', prototype of the Avestan haoma, Vedic soma,[15] whereby man can be saved from death.

    In the Alexander Romances Alexander sets out in search of the Fountain of Life, which is accidentally found, and significantly 'in the land of darkness', but cannot be found again. A recension of this legend occurs in the Shah Nama, where Alexander sets out in search of the Fountain of Life, which lies in the Land of Darkness beyond the place of the setting of the Sun in the western waters; Alexander is guided by Khizr, but when they come to a parting of the ways, each follows a different path, and Khizr alone accomplishes the quest. Those of Alexander's followers who bring back with them stones from the Land of Darkness find on their return that these are precious stones.[16]

    Khizr and Ilyas at the Fountain of Life. Amir Khusrau, Khamsah
    Ilyas and Khizr sit down by a fountain to eat their repast, consisting of dried fish; the fish falling into the waters, comes to life, and thus the seekers are made aware that they have found the Fountain of Life, from which both drink.

    The story is retold at greater length in Nizami's Iskandar Naama, LXVIII-LXIX; here Alexander learns from an ancient man (probably Khizr himself in human form) that 'of every land, the Dark Land is best, in which is a Water, a life-giver' and that the source of this River of Life is in the North, beneath the Pole Star.[17]On the way to the Dark land, in every arid land the rain falls and grass springs up, 'Thou wouldst have said: "The trace of Khizr was on that road; that verily, Khizr himself was with the king".[18] They reach the northern limit of the world, the sun ceases to rise, and the Land of Darkness lies before them.

    Alexander makes the prophet Khizr his guide, and Khizr 'moving with greenness[19] leads the way, and presently discovers the fountain, from which he drinks, becoming immortal. He keeps his eye on the spring, while waiting for Alexander to catch up with him; but it disappears from sight, and Khizr himself vanishes, realising that Alexander will not succeed in his quest. Nizami goes on to relate another version according to the 'account of the elders of Rum'; here the quest is undertaken by Ilyas[20] and Khizr, who sit down by a fountain to eat their repast, consisting of dried fish; the fish falling into the waters, comes to life, and thus the seekers are made aware that they have found the Fountain of Life, from which both drink.

    Nizami then proceeds to the Kur'anic version, and interprets the Fountain as one of Grace, the true Water of Life being the Knowledge of God. A similar interpretation of the ancient material occurs in the New Testament, (John, 4). Nizami attributes Iskandar's failure to his eagerness, whereas in the case of Khizr 'the Water of Life arrived unsought', with reference to the fact that it is revealed indirectly by its effect on the fish, when Khizr has no suspicion that he has already reached it.

    The finding of the Fountain by Ilyas and Khizr occurs in Persian art as the subject of miniatures illustrating the Iskandar Nama.[21] One of these, from a late sixteenth century manuscript belonging to Mr A. Sakisian, is reproduced in colour as frontispiece to his La Miniature persane, 1929, and in monochrome by L. Binyon, Persian Painting, 1933, PI. LXIa; here the two prophets are seated by the Well in a verdant landscape, two fish are seen lying on a platter and a third, evidently alive, is in Khizr's hand; it is clear that he is pointing out to Ilyas the significance of the miracle. Ilyas is robed in blue, Khizr wears a green robe with a brown cloak.

    In another, and unpublished version of the seventeenth century, belonging to the Freer Gallery the arrangement is similar, but only one fish is seen on the platter. A third example, in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and or late fifteenth century date, is reproduced in Ars Asiatica, XIII. PI. VII, no. 15; Ilyas and al-Khadir are seen in the foreground beside the stream, in darkness; Alexander and his followers above, as in the Freer Gallery example, where the arrangement of the darks and lights is reversed. The Freer Gallery example seems to be the more correct in this respect, inasmuch as the whole quest takes place within the Land of Darkness, but the immediate vicinity of the Fountain of Life is understood to be lighted up by the sheen of its flowing waters. The Finders of the Well are both nimbate.

    In the Syrian Lay of Alexander, and in the Qur'anic version, the fish swims away, and in the latter is said to reach the sea. A connection with the story of Manu and the 'fish' may be predicated in the Manu myth (Satapatha Bramana, I.8.i); the 'fish' (jhasa) is from the beginning alive, but very small, and precariously situated, for it comes into Manu's hands when he is washing, and asks him to rear it. Manu provides it with water, and after it has grown great, releases it in the sea; and when the Flood comes, it guides the Ark through the Waters by means of a rope attached to its horn.

    A noteworthy variant of the Manu legend, with a closer parallel to the Alexander and Qur'anic versions with respect to the dessication of the 'fish' occurs in Jaimimya Brahmana, in. 193, and Pancavimsa Brahmana, xiv. 5. 15; here Sarkara, the 'sisumara', refuses to praise Indra, Parjanya therefore strands him on dry land and dries him up with the north wind (the cause of the desiccation of the fish is thus indicated). Sarkara then finds a song of praise for Indra, Parjanya restores him to the ocean (as does Khizr, though unintentionally, in the Qur'anic version), and by the same laud Sarkara attains heaven, becoming a constellation. There can be no doubt that the constellation Capricornus, Skr. makara, makarasi, is intended. Makara, jhasa, and sisumara are thus synonymous;[22] and this Indian Leviathan clearly corresponds to the kar-fish, 'greatest of the creatures of Ahuramazda', who swims in Vourukasha, guarding the Haoma tree of life in the primordial sea (Bundahis, XVIII; Yasna, XLII. 4, etc.); and to the Sumerian goat-fish, the symbol and sometimes the vehicle of Ea, god of the waters (Langdon, Semitic Mythology, pp.105-6). That in the late Indian iconography Khizr's vehicle is an unmistakable fish, and not the crocodilian makara, need not surprise us, for other instances of the alternative use of makara and 'fish' could be cited from Indian iconographic sources; in some early representations, for example, the river-goddess Ganga is shown supported by a maker, but in the later paintings by a fish.

    In the Pseudo-Callisthenes (C) version of the Alexander legend, Alexander is accompanied by his cook, Andreas. After a long journey in the Land of Darkness, they come to a place gushing with waters, and sit down to eat; Andreas wets the dried fish, and seeing that it comes to life, drinks of the water, but does not inform Alexander. Subsequently Andreas seduces Alexander's daughter Kale, and gives her a drink of the Water of Life (of which he had brought away a portion); she having thus become an immortal goddess is called Nereis, and the cook is flung into the sea, becoming a god; both are thus denizens of the other world. There can be no doubt that Andreas here is the Idris of Qur'an, Sura xix, 57ff. and Sura xxi, 85, whom Islamic tradition identifies with Enoch, Ilyas, and al-Khadir. From the account of Idris in Ibn al-Qifti's Tarikh al-Hukama'a (c. 1200) it appears that he plays the part of a solar hero, and is immortal.

    In western Asia, Moslem or Hindu symbolic art shows the Saint, Al Khizr, dressed in a green coat being carried on top of the water by a fish which conveys him over the river of life.

    Al-Khadir also presents some point of resemblance with Saint George, and it is in this connection and as patron of travellers that we meet with a figure which is probably that of al-Khadir in carved relief over the gateway of a caravanserai on the road between Sinjar and Mosul, of the XI nth century; the figure is nimbate, and is thrusting a lance into the mouth of a scaly dragon.[23]

    The figure of a man seated on a fish occurs apparently as a Hindu work built into the bastion of the fort at Raichur, in the Deccan; it is stated to have a 'crown of river-serpent hoods', and has therefore been called a 'naga king', but these hoods are not clearly recognisable in the published reproduction.[24] Mediaeval Indian art affords numerous examples of Varuna seated on a makara.

    A brief reference may be made to European parallels similarly derivative in the last analysis from Sumerian sources. Khadir corresponds to the Greek sea-god Glaukos (Friedlander, loc. cit. pp. 108 ff., 242, 253, etc., Barnett, loc. cit. p.715). Khadir belongs to the Wandering Jew type. Parallels between Glaukos and Vedic Gand-harva are noteworthy; the Avesran designation of Gandarva as zairipasna 'green-heeled' tends to a connection of Gandharva with Khadir. Gandharva, as suggested by Dr. Barnett, may correspond to Kandarpa, i.e. Kamadeva, and in this connection it may be observed that the erotic motif common to Glaukos and Gandharva-Kamadeva appears in connection with Khizr in the Niwal Dai ballad, where Khizr will not release the waters unless he has sight of Niwal Dai; as might be looked for if we think of him as the Gandharva, and of her as the apsaras or Maiden (yosa) of the Waters, or equally if we correlate Khizr with Varuna, cf. Rg Veda, VII. 33. 10-11 where Mitra-Varuna are seduced by the sight of Urvasi, as is emphasized in the Sarvanukramani, 1.166 urvasim apsarasam drstva . . . reto apatat, and Sayana, retas caskanda evidently following Nirukta, v. 13.

    The same situation is implied in Rg Veda, VII. 87. 6 with respect to Varuna alone who descends as a white drop (drapsa) and is called a 'traverser of space' (rajasah vimanah) and 'ruler of the deep' (gambhira-sansah), epithets that might well be applied to Khizr. It remains to be observed that in Christian iconography the figure of the river-god Jordan,[25] commonly found in representations of the Baptism of Jesus, bears a certain likeness to the conception of Glaukos and Khizr. In some cases the Baptism was thought of as taking place at the junction of two rivers, Jor and Danus. Sometimes there is found a masculine river-god, and a feminine figure representing the sea; both riding on dolphins, like the numerous types of Indian dwarf Yaksas riding on makaras.

    All these types in the last analysis may be referred back to prototypes of which our earliest knowledge is Sumerian, in the concept or Ea, son and image of Enki, whose essential name Enki means 'Lord of the Watery Deep'. Ea was the ruler of the streams that rose in the Underworld, and flowed thence to fertilize the land; precious stones are likewise his. In iconography, Ea has the goat-fish, and holds in his hands the flowing-vase, the source of the 'bread and water of immortal life'. Ea has seven sons, of whom Marduk inherits his wisdom and slew the dragon Tiamat. Another son was Dumuziabzu, the 'Faithful Son of the Fresh Waters', the Shepherd, the Semitic form of whose name is Tammuz, well known as the 'Dying God' of vegetation; comparable in many respects with Soma, and as 'Lord of the Realm of the Dead' with Yama.

    The further Sumerian parallels are too many and too close to admit of adequate discussion here.[26] It suffices to have demonstrated the wide diffusion and ancient origin of the figure of Khwaja Khizr as it occurs in Persian and Indian iconography. In connection with Mughal art may be cited the remark of H. Goetz, who in discussing the sources of Mughal art speaks of a 'teils absolute Identitaet teils engste Verwandschaft mit solchen der grossen altorientalischen Kulturen, und zwar zu gut Teilen schon der klassischen sumerischen Zeit'.[27] That the figure of Khizr comes into independent prominence precisely in Mughal art of the eighteenth century—all the Indian examples that I have seen are in the 'Lucknow style'— when considered in connection with the adoption of the fish as royal emblem by the rulers of Oudh, seems to show that some revival of the cult took place at this time and in this area.



    [1] In accordance with the meaning of al-Khadir, the 'Green Man'.

    [2] Safidam, probably a corruption of sarpa-damana, 'Quelling of the Serpent'. For the legend of Niwal Dai see Temple, Legends of the Punjab, I, pp. 414, 418-19.

    [3] Usually Sanja (perhaps for Skr. Samjna). This priest (Brahman) who serves Vasuki, but acts against him, suggests Visvarupa who in Taittinya Samhita, LI. 5. 1 is called the Purohita of the Angels, and Usanas Kavya who in Pancavimsa Brahmana, VII. 5. 20 is the Purohita of the Titans, but is won over to the side of the Angels.

    [4] A location of the Well in the domains of the human Pariksit is hardly 'correct', (it is really on the borders of both worlds, in a forest equally accessible to Vasuki and Pariksit), but it will be observed that the waters are not merely protected by the heavy stone covering, but also subject to Khizr's will, they- are not 'flowing'. Vedic equivalents for the 'heavy stone' which hinders access to the waters are abundant, e.g. IV. 28. 5 aphitani asna, VI. 17. 5 adrim acyutam, IV. 16. 8 apah adrim, IV. i. 15 drdhram ubdham adrim, IV. 18.6 paridhim adrim, and when the stony obstacle is broke?, then "the waters flow from the pregnant rock", srnvantnv apah . . . babrhanasya adreh, V. 41.12; cf. Satapatha Brahmana IX. 1.2.4 in connection with the baptism of the fire-altar, which begins 'from the rock', because it is from the rock that the waters come forth, asmano hy apahprabhavanti. Vasuki in the ballad corresponds to Ahi, smitten by Indra, but 'still waxing in sunless gloom', Rg Veda, v, 32. 6.

    [5] In the theme condensed above it is easy to recognise the Vedic creation-myth of the conflict between Angels and Titans (Devas and Asuras), Indra and Ahi-Vrtra; the abduction of Niwal Dai is the rape of Vac, (Rg Veda, i. 130, where Indra vacam musayati); Khwaja Khizr, the master of the waters, the Vedic rivers of life, is Varuna.

    [6] E. G. Blochet, Peintures hindoues de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 1926. Pls. V and XXIII.

    [7] The world under water, the home of the serpent race (ahi, naga), Varuna's 'watery origin' (yonim apyam, Rg Veda, II, 38, 8), 'in the western gloom' (apacinc tamasi, ib. VI, 6, 4), is not lighted by the Sun, it is 'beyond the Falcon' (Jaiminiya Brahmana, III, 268), but the shining of the Waters is everlasting (ahar-ahar yati aktur apam, Rg Veda, II. 30.1).

    [8] Shaikh Chilli, Folk Tales of Hindustan, Allahabad, 1913, pp. 130 ff., with a modern picture of Khwaja Khizr as an old man blessing Mahbub, PI. XXXIII. The story of Prince Mahbub is essentially the relation of an achievement of the Grail Quest by a solar hero, the son of a widowed mother, and brought up in seclusion and innocence of his true character, as in the Perceval cycle. Mahbub corresponds to Vedic Agni and Surya; Kassab to Indra.

    [9] Apsarases; Grail maidens.

    [10] The 'wailing women' and 'deathlike trance' of the Fisher King are essential features of the Grail myth.

    [11] Equivalent to Skr. mahin, 'magician', a designation especially applicable to the Titans and, secondarily to the premier Angels, particularly Agni, the 'ancestors' represent the solar heroes of former cycles.

    [12] The Grail Quest is achieved.

    [13] Bahrain, an island in the Persian Gulf, has been identified by many scholars with the Sumerian Dilmun, where dwelt the gardener Tagtut after the flood: see Delitzsch, Wo lag das Parodies, p.178, and Langdon, Sumerian Epic, pp. 8ff.

    [14] For Islamic legend, other parallels, and further references see Encyclopedia of Islam, s. v. Idris, al-Khadir and Khwadja Khidr; Warner, Shah Nama of Firdausi, VI, pp. 74-8 and 159-162; Hopkins, 'The Fountain of Youth'. JAOS. XXVI; Barnett, 'Yama, Gandharva, and Claucus', Bull. School Oriental Studies, IV; Grierson, Kihar Peasant Life, pp. 40-3; Garcin de Tassy, Memoire sur des Particularites de la Religion Musalmane dans l'Inde, pp. 85-9; Wunsche, Die Sagen voin Lebensbaum und Liebenswasser, Leipzig, 1905; Friedlander, Die Chadhirlegende und der Alexander-Roman, Leipzig, 1913.

    [15] Cf. Barnet, loc. cit., pp. 708-10.

    [16] Cf. Rg Veda, VII. 6. 4 and 7, where Agni is said to bring forth the Maidens (rivers of life) eastward from the 'western darkness' (apacine tamasi) and to bring back 'treasures of earth' (budhnya vasuni) 'when the Sun rises' (udita suryasya).

    [17] Al-Khadir's realm, known as Yuh (also a name of the Sun), where he rules over saints and angels, is situated in the far North; it is an Earthly Paradise, a part of the human world which remained unaffected by the Fall of Adam and the curse (see Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism, pp. 82,124).

    [18] According to 'Umarah, Khizr is 'Green' because the earth becomes green at the touch of his feet.

    [19] Khazra, either 'verdure' or 'sky'.

    [20] The prophet Elias, with whom Khizr is often identified.

    [21] Cf. Iskandar Nama, LXIX. 57, 'verdure grows more luxuriantly by the fountain'. Ibid. 22, (he spring is described as a 'fountain of light', and this corresponds to Vendidad, Fargad xxi, where light and water proceed from a common source; cf. also Vedic Soma as both light and life, a plant and a fluid (amrta, the Water of Life, cf. Barnett, loc. cit., p. 705, note 1).

    [22] In Bhagavad Gita, X. 31, Krsna is jhasanam makarah, the makara is therefore regarded as the foremost amongst the jhasas, or monsters of the deep. The word makara occurs first in Vajasaneyi Samhita, XXIV. 35; simsumara in Rg Veda, I. 116. 18. For a full discussion of the makara in Indian iconography (especially as vehicle of Varuna and banner of Kamadeva) see my Yaksas, 1931,11, p. 47ff. and further references there cited. The 'fish' vehicle, of course, implies the rider's independence of local motion in the unbounded ocean of universal possibility; just as wings denote angelic independence of local motion in the actual worlds.

    [23] Sarre und Herzfeld, Archaeologische Reise im Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet, Vol. I, pp. 13, and 37-8, Berlin, 1911.

    [24] See my Yaksas, 11.

    [25] For example, in the Baptistry at Ravenna (Berchem and Clouzot, figs. lii and 220); Jordan here holds a vase from which the waters are flowing.

    [26] For the Sumerian deities see S. H. Langdon, Semitic Mythology, Ch. 2; for the flowing vase etc. Van Buren, The Flowing Vase and the God with Streams, Berlin, 1933, and as regards India, my Yaksas, 11. For the iconographic link between me Asiatic full vase and Christian Grail vessel see Gosse, Recherches sur quelques representations du Vase Eucharistique, Geneva, 1894.

    [27] Bilderatlas ziir Kulturgeschichte Indiens in der Grossmoghul-Zeit, 1930, p. 71. 'An in part absolute identity and an in part very close Kinship with the sources of the great cultures of the ancient East and even to a considerable extent with the sources of the classical Sumerian period.'

    Original Page: http://khidr.org/khwaja-khadir.htm

    Shared from Read It Later

    Regards,
    Walid.

    Book Review: Patrick Franke’s 'Encountering the Khidr'

    Book Review: Patrick Franke’s 'Begegnung mit Khidr: Quellenstudien zum Imaginaren im traditionellen Islam'
    http://khidr.org/franke.khidr.review.htm


    The legend of Khidr, ‘the Green one’, has been of abiding interest for both Muslim and Western scholars over the centuries. Although Khidr, an imaginary figure, can be encountered in the practices and traditions of Muslim societies around the world, no comprehensive survey of this phenomenon has been undertaken. Patrick Franke’s Begegnung mit Khidr: Quellenstudien zum Imaginaren im traditionellen Islam presents the first ever study of Khidr as a focus for worldwide Muslim piety. Franke divides Begegnung mit Khidr (‘Encountering Khidr’), a revised version of his Ph.D. thesis, into five parts. Part 1 analyses the literary theme of the encounter with Khidr, its important components, as well as the significance of, and expectations tied to, such meetings. Part 2 deals with the basic elements of Muslim reverence for Khidr, while part 3 examines his connection to the world of the friends of God. Franke highlights, in part 4, the instances when Khidr was used as a symbol for God’s endorsement of particular places, rulers, Hadiths. Sunni schools of law as well as Shii distinctiveness. The last section of the book is devoted to the ‘Khidr-controversy’, contentious aspects of the myth which have been debated among Muslims to the present day. Annexed to these sixteen chapters are 173 stories of encounters with Khidr arranged and translated by Franke and spanning the period from ninth to twentieth centuries.

    Based on a wealth of material in Arabic, Persian and Turkish, Begegnung mit Khidr offers a macro study of the veneration of Khidr in the Islamic/Muslim world. Franke draws on collections of hattiths, commentaries on the Quran, Sufi manuals, legends of saintly figures, biographical dictionaries as well as chronicles, travelogues, folk traditions and novels to provide a rich survey of encounters, manifestations, symbols and rituals involving Khidr. The study locates him at the centre of a complex system of discrete religious phenomena and sets out to disentangle and order these in a systematic fashion. It traces the collective interpretive processes, which led to the emergence, changing shape and function of the figure of Khidr, and thus provides a global historical phenomenology of reverence for him.

    Texts speak of Khidr as a man to whom God granted eternal life and who made sudden appearances in the lives of humans. His interventions were largely meant to help and provide succour to people in times of need, a characteristic that is underlined by the fact that ambulance services in Turkey today are called ‘Khidr-Service’ (p. 26). In parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Central Asia and Afghanistan people offered the Khidr-meal at home to gain his blessings; in areas of the Balkans and Turkey Muslims celebrated the Khidr-feast; while his sanctuaries and pilgrimage-sites can be found throughout the Muslim world. Both Sunni and Shii Islam contain supplicatory prayers to Khidr, the most famous of which, the Du’a Kumayal, was read publicly during the burial of Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran (p. 112). Seeing and meeting Khidr was regarded as a great distinction among Muslims, indeed being able to encounter him was one of the distinguishing marks of Sufi saints. Khidr, far from being a rival figure to the Prophet Muhammad, developed into his supporting helper, and was tightly woven into the Islamic fabric of Quran, prayer, mosque attendance, hajj and charity.

    Why was the veneration of Khidr never transformed into a coherent religion devoted solely to him? Franke addresses this question in the last section of his book. ‘Ulama’ from the tenth century onwards took a defensive position with regard to this legendary figure and participated in debates, still ongoing, as to the nature of Khidr. Two questions were at the forefront of their concerns: Was Khidr a prophet or a friend of God, a Sufi saint? And was Khidr still alive or not? The importance of the first question was linked to Khidr’s etiology. Identified as the nameless servant of God in Sura 18: 60-82 of the Quran, whose deeds, the destruction of a boat, the killing of a boy, were against Islamic law, religious scholars were concerned that if Khidr were understood to be a friend of God, other friends might decide to take the same liberties. In order to prevent this license for lawlessness, some ‘ulama’ declared Khidr to be a prophet and his deeds thus not to be a precedence for Sufi saints.

    The second question, whether Khidr was still alive, was a more contentious issue. In the twelfth century a Hanbali scholar denied the continued existence of Khidr. The majority of scholars, on the other hand, affirmed Khidr’s eternal life and have continued to do so into the twentieth century. New Arabic texts on Khidr have appeared during the last twenty years of the twentieth century, the majority of which have rejected the idea of his eternal life as ‘unislamic’ without enlisting new arguments for their viewpoint though. New developments, however, have taken place in quranic exegesis, which have refocused this century-old controversy.

    Both Mawlana Mawdudi (1903-79), the founder of the Jama’at-i Islami in Pakistan, one of the early Islamist movements, and Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), the leading thinker of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, addressed the question of Khidr in their commentaries on the Quran. While Mawdudi was satisfied with reinterpreting Khidr as an angel, thus eliminating the problems of both lawlessness and eternal life, Qutb took a more radical step. He rejected outright the hadiths-bound, century-old identification of Khidr with the nameless servant of God in Sura 18: 60-82. Instead he insisted on keeping the servant nameless, thus severing the central link of Khidr with the Quran. ‘Muslims who follow his quranic interpretation will no longer see Khidr as a religious figure with a place in the Islamic salvation-history [Heilsgeschichte] but only a chimera [Hirngespinst], which is to be consigned to the realm of superstition.’ (my translation, p. 369) Franke thus closes his excellent study with what might come to be the swansong for Khidr.

    Source: Book review by Claudia Liebeskind in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 6513 (2002)

    Review by W. Madelung

    Begegnung mit Khidr: Quellenstudien zum Imaginaren im traditionellen Islam. By PATRICK FRANKE. Beiruter Texte und Studien, vol. 79. Stuttgart: FRANZ STEINER VERLAG, 2000. Pp. xv 620, plates. [euro]89.

    Al-Khadir or al-Khidr, the “green one,” is the name of the most conspicuous imaginary figure in popular religious life throughout the Muslim world. Believed to have been granted eternal life in ancient times, al-Khidr wanders forever on earth, visiting holy sites and suddenly appearing to believers, mostly to help and advise them in need and to console them in grief. Tales about encounters with him abound. His status in official Islam was secured by his early identification with the anonymous “servant of God” who, according to Qur’an 18:60-82, was sent to teach the prophet Moses a lesson. This identification was confirmed by canonical hadith reports classified as sound. The longevity of al-Khidr was questioned by only a few prominent scholars such as Ibn Hazm, Ibn al-Jawzi, and Ibn Taymiyya. Sufi circles in particular strongly promoted belief in his continued presence and miraculous activity on earth.

    Much has been written about various aspects of the veneration of al-Khidr. The present volume offers a comprehensive study of the phenomenon, its history, ramifications, and spread throughout the Muslim world. In the first part, the motive and typical characteristics of encounters with al-Khidr are analyzed as described in numerous literary accounts.

    The second part deals with basic elements of his veneration. His mythical dimension connects him variously with Melchisedek, Alexander the Great, Jeremiyah, and the Qur’anic Servant of God sent to Moses. His cosmic role, which he often shares with Elias/Elijah, shows him as the lord of vegetation, or the seas, the desert, the atmosphere. Popular customs of the cult of al-Khidr, including the Turkish Hidrellez festival, are described in detail.

    The third part of the book extensively analyzes al-Khidr’s role in Sufism. He appears as a spiritual initiator, guide, as a paragon of ascetic practice, repudiation of the world, and trust in God, as dispenser of transcendent knowledge and inspiration. Often he is viewed as heading the secret hierarchy of saints governing the Sufi world. Al-Khidr’s special role in various Sufi orders is discussed.

    Part four examines al-Khidr’s function as purveyor of divine authorization. He appears as the patron saint of sacred buildings and towns, as legitimator of individual rulers and dynasties. He inspires the works of poets, confirms religious beliefs and doctrine. Thus he is involved in the apologetics between Shi’a and Sunna, in the rivalry among the Sunni law schools, and transmits hadith.

    The fifth part of Franke’s book deals with the controversy aroused among religious scholars about the reality and status of al-Khidr. Is he a prophet or merely a wali, a saint? Is he still alive, and what was his role in the time of the prophet Muhammad? The controversy continues to the present age. In an appendix, 173 accounts of encounters with al-Khidr and other relevant texts, are arranged according to themes and partly translated or summarized. These are gleaned from a wide range of sources in various languages, from all ages and all parts of the Muslim world.

    The author’s analysis of the subject matter in general reflects a fine and sympathetic understanding of the significance of the imaginary world in religious psychology. With its broad and careful documentation from numerous primary sources and critical evaluation of previous studies, the book provides a mine of information and a reference work on a major figure of the imaginary world of Islam. It should attract in particular readers interested in popular Islam and Sufism.

    Patrick FRANKE. Begegnung mit Khidr. Quellenstudien zum imaginären im traditionellen Islam. Beirut: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000 (xv + 620 pp. + 23 end plates).

    This is an exhaustive encyclopedic treatise on Khidr utilizing a very wide range of published Syriac pre-Islamic and Arabic, Persian, and Turkish Islamic sources. The first two thirds of the book comprehensively examines the mythical, historical, symbolic, ritual, sufi, and poetic dimensions of Khidr narratives. After this text is a separate compendium of 173 translated passages of various Khidr narratives arranged in six themes. These are nicely cross referenced with the discussion in the first part of the book. The end plates portray the visual aspects of Khidr veneration, e.g., shrines, festivals and representations of Khidr.

    The book begins with the conception of Khidr in the Muslim imagination through an exposition of his various roles. Franke investigates the typical aspects of the Khidr myth, e.g., Khidr as a helper of those in emergency situations, as a person with changing form, and as a hidden presence among humanity. This is augmented by a careful analysis of other figures in the Near Eastern imagination such as Melchisedek, Alexander the Great, Jeremiah, and Elias. Detailed historical research demonstrates how these various figures overlap and contribute to the development of Muslim perceptions of Khidr. With this background of pre-Islamic legends, the author outlines various Islamic ritual celebrations and places honoring Khidr, e.g., the Turkish Hidrellez celebration and the many mosques and shrines named after Khidr.

    A special section is devoted to Khidr in the sufi world. Starting with tenth-century sufi sources, the book amply shows how Khidr has been portrayed as God’s friend. Khidr’s celestial rank (as a qutb or one of the abdâl) as a cosmic being initiates a discussion examining the extent to which Khidr is a human or a multi-faceted symbol. Then the author investigates the motif of Khidr as sufi shaykh, both in sufi ritual (e.g., the initiatory handshake and the sufi robe) and his role in the Naqshbandiyya, Sanusiyya, and Murshidiyya. The Khidrology (a term coined by Herman Landolt) of Alâ ad-Dawla Simnânî evidently influenced many centuries of the Khidr legend in the Indian Subcontinent.

    With Khidr as the symbol of God’s authority, Franke demonstrates how Khidr came to be associated with the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul and a number of cities in the Islamic world including Damascus, Samarqand, Tunis, and Herat. In addition, Khidr has been used to legitimize many Islamic dynasties including the Ghaznavids and the early Ottomans. Near the end of the analysis, there are examples of Khidr-inspired literary works and discussions of Shî î versus Sunnî perspectives on Khidr as well as continuing controversies concerning Khidr, e.g., whether he is a prophet or God’s friend and whether he is immortal. Begegnung mit Khidr, is the basic reference for Khidr. It provides a fine example of solid research that will serve a large cross section of scholars for decades to come.

    A. Buehler

    Article: Valentinus - A Gnostic for All Seasons

    Valentinus - A Gnostic for All Seasons
    http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm


    A Gnostic for All Seasons

    THE GNOSIS ARCHIVE

    Gnosis Archive | Library | Bookstore | Index | Web Lectures | Ecclesia Gnostica | Gnostic Society

    by Stephan A. Hoeller

    When questioned regarding the personal elements in his lifelong interest in matters Gnostic, Professor Gilles Quispel, the noted Gnostic expert and associate of C.G. Jung, tells a remarkable story. During the dark and hopeless years of World War II, when life and the world seemed lacking in hope and joy, Quispel turned to the study of the message of the great Gnostic teacher and poet, Valentinus. The inspiration, comfort, and faith derived from the writings of Valentinus were instrumental in turning Quispel into a devoted and thoroughly sympathetic scholar of Gnosticism. It would not be a gross exaggeration to state that the experience of the Dutch scholar is far from unique and that numerous persons in our contemporary world are finding the message of this greatest of all Gnostic teachers of eminent and helpful relevance in their lives.

    The Almost Pope

    G.R.S. Mead, the great early translator and theosophical interpreter of Gnostic documents, called Valentinus “the great unknown” of Gnosticism, and indeed it is true that we do not possess much information regarding his life and personality. He was born in Africa, probably within the territory of the ancient city of Carthage, around or before 100 A.D. He was educated in Alexandria and in the prime of his years transferred his residence to Rome, where he achieved a high degree of prominence in the Christian community between 135 and 160 A.D. Tertullian wrote that Valentinus was a candidate for the office of bishop of Rome and that he lost the election by a rather narrow margin. This same failed orthodox church father (Tertullian himself joined the heresy of Montanism) alleges that Valentinus fell into apostasy around 175 A.D. There is much evidence indicating, however, that he was never universally condemned as a heretic in his lifetime and that he was a respected member of the Christian community until his death. He was almost certainly a priest in the mainstream church and may even have been a bishop.

    It is certainly a question of some interest what the course of Christian theology might have been had Valentinus been elected to the office of bishop of Rome. His hermeneutic vision combined with his superb sense of the mythical would have probably resulted in a general flowering of the Gnosis within the very fabric of the Church of Rome, and might have created an authoritative paradigm of Gnostic Christianity that could not have been easily exorcised for centuries, if at all.

    Like many of the greatest Gnostic teachers, Valentinus claimed to have been instructed by a direct disciple of one of Jesus’ apostles, an “apostolic man” by the name of Theodas. Tertullian also stated that Valentinus was personally acquainted with Origen, and one may speculate with some justification that his influence on this orthodox church father was considerable. The overall character of his contribution has been accurately summarized by Mead in the following manner:

    The Gnosis in his hands is trying to … embrace everything, even the most dogmatic formulation of the traditions of the Master. The great popular movement and its incomprehensibilities were recognized by Valentinus as an integral part of the mighty outpouring; he laboured to weave all together, external and internal, into one piece, devoted his life to the task, and doubtless only at his death perceived that for that age he was attempting the impossible. None but the very few could ever appreciate the ideal of the man, much less understand it. (Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, p. 297)

    Valentinus, the Gnostic who almost became pope, was thus the only man who could have succeeded in gaining a form of permanent positive recognition for the Gnostic approach to the message of Christ. The fact that circumstances and the increasing floodtide of a regressive pseudo-orthodoxy caused his efforts to fail must be reckoned among the greatest tragedies of the history of Christianity. Still, many essential features of his unique contribution have survived and more have recently surfaced from the sands of the desert of Egypt. We shall address ourselves to the most important of these in the following pages.

    Psycho-Cosmogony and the Pneumatic Equation

    The often-debated cosmogony of Valentinus might be most profitably understood as being based on a single existential recognition, which might be summarized thus: Something is wrong. Somewhere, somehow, the fabric of being at the existential level of human functioning has lost its integrity. We live in a system which is lacking in essential integrity, and thus is defective. So-called orthodox Christians as well as Jews recognize that there is a certain “wrongness” in human existence, but they account for it chiefly in terms of the effects of human sin, original or other. Jews and Christians hold that whatever is wrong with the world and human existence is the result of human disobedience to the creator. This means, that all evil, discomfort, and terror in our lives and in history are somehow our fault. A great cosmic statement of “Mea Culpa” runs through this world view, which permanently affixes to the human psyche an element of titanic guilt. Valentinus, in opposition to this guilt-ridden view of life, held that the above-noted defect is not the result of our wrongdoing, but is inherent in the system of existence wherein we live and move and have our being. Moreover, by postulating that creation itself is lacking in integrity, Valentinus not only removes the weight of personal and collective guilt from our shoulders but also points to the redemptive potential resident in the soul of every human being.

    Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful only by Gnosis, or self-knowledge. When referring to the myth of the creation of the world by a god, Valentinus shifts the blame for the condition of cosmic defect from humanity to creative divinity. That God the creator could be at fault in anything is of course tantamount to blasphemy in the eyes of the orthodox. What we need to recognize, however, is that Valentinus does not view the creator with the worshipful eyes of the Judeo-Christian believer, but rather sees the creator - along with other divinities - as a mythologem. Much evidence could be adduced to demonstrate this, but one must suffice here, taken from the Gospel of Philip:

    God created man and man created God. So is it in the world. Men make gods and they worship their creations. If would be fitting for the gods to worship men. (Logion 85: 1-4)

    The present writer holds that Valentinian (as well as all other) Gnosticism can be understood in psychological terms, so that the religious mythologems treated by the Gnostics are taken to symbolize psychological conditions and intra-psychic powers of the mind. Taking this approach we might conclude that what Valentinus tells us is that because our minds have lost their self-knowledge, we live in a self-created world that is lacking in integrity. The word kosmos used by Gnostics does not mean “world,” but rather “system,” and thus can be perfectly well applied to the systematization of reality created by the human ego. We need not worry overmuch about whether Valentinus insults Jehovah by calling him a demiurge. What matters is that we act as our own psychic demiurges by first creating and the inhabiting a flawed kosmos created in the image and likeness of our own flaws.

    The proposition that the human mind lives in a largely self-created world of illusion from whence only the enlightenment of a kind of Gnosis can rescue it finds powerful analogues in the two great religions of the East, i.e., Hinduism and Buddhism. The following statement from the Upanishads could easily have been written by Valentinus or another Gnostic: “This (world) is God’s Maya, through which he deceives himself.” According to the teachings of Buddha, the world of apparent reality consists of ignorance, impermanence, and the lack of authentic selfhood. Valentinus is in very good company indeed when he establishes the proposition of the wrong system of false reality that can be set aright by the human spirit.

    This brings us to the second part of what some scholars have called the “pneumatic equation” of Valentinus. After accepting the proposition of the flawed system, the mind needs to recognize a second and complementary truth. Irenaeus in his work against heresies quotes Valentinus concerning this:

    Perfect redemption is the cognition itself of the ineffable greatness: for since through ignorance came about the defect … the whole system springing from ignorance is dissolved in Gnosis. Therefore Gnosis is the redemption of the inner man; and it is not of the body, for the body is corruptible; nor is it psychical, for even the soul is a product of the defect and it is a lodging to the spirit: pneumatic (spiritual) therefore also must be redemption itself. Through Gnosis, then, is redeemed the inner, spiritual man: so that to us suffices the Gnosis of universal being: and this is the true redemption. (Adv. Haer. I. 21,4)

    The ignorance of the agencies that create the false system is thus undone and rectified by the spiritual Gnosis of the human being. The defect can be removed from being by Gnosis. There is no need whatsoever for guilt, for repentance from so-called sin, neither is there a need for a blind belief in a vicarious salvation by way of the death of Jesus. We don’t need to be saved; we need to be transformed by Gnosis. The wrong-headedness, perversity, obtuseness, and malignancy of the existential condition of humanity can be changed into a glorious image of the fullness of being. This is done not by guilt, shame, and an eternal saviour but by the activation of the redemptive potential of self-knowledge. Spiritual self-knowledge thus becomes the inverse equivalent of the ignorance of the unredeemed ego. The elaborate mythic structures of cosmogonic and redemptive content bequeathed to us by Valentinus are but the poetic-scriptural expressions of this grand proposition, which has a direct relevance to the existential condition of the human psyche in all ages and in all cultures.

    The Gnostic Saviour: a Maker of Wholeness

    It would be erroneous to deduce from the foregoing that Valentinus negated or even diminished the importance of Jesus in his teachings. The great devotion and reverence shown for Jesus by Valentinus is amply manifest with sublime poetic beauty in the Gospel of Truth, which in its original form was in fact authored by Valentinus himself. According to Valentinus, Jesus is indeed Saviour, but the term needs to be understood in the meaning of the original Greek word, used by orthodox and Gnostic Christian alike. This word is soter, meaning healer, or bestower of health. From this is derived the word today translated as salvation, i.e., soteria, which originally meant healthiness, deliverance from imperfection, becoming whole, and preserving one’s wholeness. What then is the role of the soter of spiritual maker of wholeness, if he clearly has no need to save humankind from either original or personal sin? What is the state or condition of newly found spiritual health bestowed or facilitated by such a healer-saviour?

    The Gnostic contention is that both the world and humanity are sick. The sickness of the world and its equivalent human illness both have one common root: ignorance. We ignore the authentic values of life and substitute unauthentic ones for them. The unauthentic values are for the most part either physical or of the mind. We believe that we need things (such as money, symbols of power and prestige, physical pleasures) in order to be happy or whole. Similarly we fall in love with the ideas and abstractions of our minds. (The rigidities and the hardness of our lives are always due to our excessive attachment to abstract concepts and precepts.) The sickness of materialism was called hyleticism (worship of matter) by the Gnostics, while the sickness of abstract intellectualism and moralizing was known as psychism (worship of the mind-emotional soul). The true role of the facilitators of wholeness in this world, among whom Jesus occupied the place of honor, is that they can exorcise these sicknesses by bringing knowledge of the pneuma (spirit) to the soul and mind.

    What is this pneuma, this spirit, which alone brings Gnosis and healing to the sickness of human nature? We cannot truly say what it is, but we can indicate what it does. It has been said that the spirit bloweth where it listeth. It brings flexibility, existential courage of life. By way of the healing agency of pneuma, the soul ceases to be fascinated and confined by things and ideas and thus it can address itself to life. The obsession of the human psyche with the importance of the material world and/or of the abstract intellectual and moral world is the sickness from which the great saviours of humanity redeem us. The obsessive state of material and mental attachments is thus replaced by spiritual freedom; the unauthentic values of the former are made to give way to the authentic ones brought by the spirit.

    Union and Redemption as Sacraments

    imgimgimgimg