Special to the Cape Charles Mirror by Chas Cornweller.
Namaste is a Hindu greeting of respect and recognition. It can be used both as a greeting or salutation and/or as a farewell in parting. Somewhat in the same manner as the Jewish greeting or parting use of the word, Shalom or the Hawaiian usage of the greeting or parting use of Aloha. At this juncture, am I the only one with raised eyebrows? Three very distinct places on the earth, three very distinct and ancient languages using nearly the exact phrase (albeit different wording) to convey nearly the exact same meaning. Let me break it down to you, the reader.
Aloha (Hawaiian) taken directly from the website Aloha International article “The Deeper Meaning of Aloha” The spirit of Aloha was an important lesson taught to the children of the past because it was about the world of which they were a part. One early teaching goes like this:
Aloha is being a part of all, and all being a part of me. When there is pain – it is my pain. When there is joy – it is also mine. I respect all that is as part of the Creator and part of me. I will not willfully harm anyone or anything. When food is needed, I will take only my need and explain why it is being taken. The earth, the sky, the sea are mine to care for, to cherish and to protect.
Shalom (Hebrew) taken directly from the encyclopedia context from the blog site, Wikipedia: is a Hebrew word meaning to impart peace, harmony, wholeness, completeness, prosperity, welfare and tranquility and can be used idiomatically to mean both hello and goodbye.
Namaste: (Hindu) I bow to the divine in you. The greeting can be, but not always be accompanied with the usage of a slight bow with palms pressed together and fingers pointing upward, thumbs close to the chest. Also, the gesture may be given in the same pose without the word, Namaste being spoken, but understood as such by the receiver.
Now that we know the meanings of these three very distinct greetings from three very distinct cultures, what is my point of writing this? My point is clearly this, to point out to you that certain ancient cultures and peoples recognized the divine within us all. A strong statement, I realize. And it goes against the grain of every teaching in Western culture today. In fact, Western teachings are the antithesis of these three phrases. We say hello, pleased to meet you, nice to make your acquaintance, greetings and/or the pleasure is mine. All of which say very little of our actual feelings in meeting someone new. Much less, our perception of ourselves transposed to another fellow human being. We, culturally, are shut off from our own connection to the divine within and do not recognize the divine within our fellow human being.
Arabs and many Muslims use the term Ahlan wa sahlan, which basically means hello, you are welcome. A returned greeting would be along the lines of…as-salaam or Peace be upon you. Neither of which touch at the soul of a person and neither of which can be used in coming and going. Aramaic is an ancient language as well, but has changed greatly over the past fifteen hundred years through the spread of Islam throughout that part of the world. Many words and phrases have mutated through cultural divide and cultural acceptance. It is my feeling (speculation of course) that any greeting used to recognize the divine was long taken out to demote man and raise God (Allah).
So, at this point, I have to ask the reader, how much of the divine purpose is attributed to mankind and how much is attributed to our perceptions of God or the Godhead or Divine Truth? This is really the gist of this dissertation. Is man divine or have we ascribed divinity to a concept in which we cannot measure, nor see, nor hear and can only grasp through faith?
Now, I realize I may have lost some readers at this point. I am okay with that, in fact I’d rather work with folks who, like me, are on a search and have not abandoned that search to an easy answer or worse, ideas other folks tell them are true. I believe the mind works best when it is open, much like a parachute. (been waiting years to use that line somewhere – just seemed right).
So, back to my point. Are we divine? And if so, what happened to us? Look around, the world is in miserable shape overall. Greed, avarice, famine, starvation, war, pestilence, killings, shootings, racism, hatred, adultery, idolization of the material, recklessness and filth…this is our world today. With all of the religions and all of the churches and all of the technology and all of the science and the higher intellect, we still are on the same paths as from ancient times. Or are we?
Let’s look at the three ancient cultures I’d mentioned at the beginning of the article. Ancient India, Ancient Judea and Hawaii. Were there struggles there, thousands of years, ago? Yes, I am sure there were. But not nearly on the scale as today’s worldwide conflicts. Most of those struggles came from outside sources as well, not from within. I have read of the cultures of all three and generally they were a peaceful duty bound people. Bonded by culture and a strong king. Nature was the number one destructive force (in Hawaiian culture, gods found in nature were divine and when the people fell short, the gods punished them for failing), followed by outside invasions. Far down the list would be internal strife, usually emulating from within the royal family with a combination of jealousies and greed. But, the fact that divine recognition in one another kept people in check, cannot be discounted.
Now, let’s look at other cultures that had a total different outlook. Egypt, Rome, China for three. You had a royal line in all three (Emperor equating kingship in Ancient Rome). There was a strong drive to conquer (little regard for other cultures or peoples). A strong attribution to the gods of divine power. And there you have it. Empower the people with a strong cultural/nationalistic entitlement while denying the divine. Thus, enabling strong armies, or marauding hordes (Genghis Khan-Mongols) to set out and conquer at will. It’s easy when the person directly in front of your sword, lance, bow and arrow, cannon, gun, gunship or weapon of mass destruction has been reduced to less than human by dogma and/or propaganda.
Now, to drive this home. If we, as a species, could see everyone for who they truly are, would we be so inclined to destroy them? Why is it so difficult to grasp the idea that everyone and I mean everyone, sleeps like you, eats like you, feels like you, cries like you, laughs like you…loves their children and grand-children as you do? The blood we carry, all seven billion and counting of us, is red. And is pumped by the same vessel found in each and every one of us. IF one person has found that spark that lies within, why can’t we all? What is it about our culture and world view that causes us to deny the divine in each of us?
I could give you the reasons why I think it is so, but, I’d like to leave this article open ended. Ended with planting a seed for thought, for you, the reader. So, in parting, I would just like to say…Aloha, Shalom and Namaste. Until we meet, again.
Nicki Tiffany says
Well done, Wayne! Namaste.
Note: Thanks Nicki, but this story was by Chas Cornweller!
Robert says
Aloha! This is amazing. Mahalo for sharing this knowledge!🤙🏽
Robert Marr says
It seems as if Aloha and Shalom and other cultures have the same idea. Regarding this principle of life, this goal to worked toward.
Paul Plante says
As for me, I do so miss our Charles Cornweller, who had the courage, foresight, tenacity, grit, and was able to endeavor to persevere to introduce all of us benighted savages out here in the hinterlands and wilds of America to the vital concept of being “WOKE!”
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNWELLER: Now, to drive this home.
If we, as a species, could see everyone for who they truly are, would we be so inclined to destroy them?
JOHN LOCKE responds in the affirmative:
For by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred;
And one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion;
Because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so, may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
– John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, Chapter II, Of The State of War
Blue Hoss says
Freedom of speech is unnecessary if the people to whom it is granted do not think for themselves
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNWELLER: Why is it so difficult to grasp the idea that everyone and I mean everyone, sleeps like you, eats like you, feels like you, cries like you, laughs like you…loves their children and grand-children as you do?
*************************************
It is not possible for me to grasp the idea that everyone sleeps like me, eats like me, feels like me, cries like me (I actually don’t cry), laughs like me, loves their children and grand-children as I do, because I know it is not a true statement.
Take Joe Biden, for example, who denies that an innocent 4-year old girl proven to be the fruit of Hunter Biden’s loins is his grand daughter.
And people who assert that men are really women most certainly do not feel like me.
Nor does everyone eat like me, and it would be foolish of me to think that they do, when I know from observation that they don’t.
And far too many people don’t laugh, at all!
Sorry, Chas, but reality is reality, and wishful thinking won’t make it otherwise!
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNWELLER: The blood we carry, all seven billion and counting of us, is red.
And is pumped by the same vessel found in each and every one of us.
*************************************
And so too is the blood of every mammalian predator red, lions, tigers, wolves, pederasts, etc., which is also pumped by the same vessel found in all of their prey, including we humans!
Stuart Bell says
What grown man would allow others to call him ‘Chas’?
Paul Plante says
Chas Cornweller.
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNELLER: Namaste is a Hindu greeting of respect and recognition.
***************************************************
“Hi, how’ya doing” is an American greeting of respect and recognition no different than namaste.
Given that I am an American, not a Hindu in India, I say “Hi, how’ya doing” as a greeting of respect and recognition, not namaste, which would sound quite odd.
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNELLER: We, culturally, are shut off from our own connection to the divine within and do not recognize the divine within our fellow human being.
***********************************
And that statement, of course is not at all true.
I actually liked Chas Cornweller, and who wouldn’t, because he was always testing our intellects in here, and where it all began to break down for Chas, in this particular venue which protects and promotes INTELLECTUAL INDEPENDENCE (being intellectually independent means being able to form your own opinions and beliefs based on reason and evidence) was with blanket dogmatic (inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true) statements like this one above here about being “culturally” shut off from our own connection to the divine within, as if we were all shaped with the same cookie cutter from the same batch of dough, and all had the same “culture” that produced Chas, which premise was and is intellectually untenable (an argument, theory, or position that is untenable cannot be defended successfully against criticism or attack), which Chas certainly got a lot of while he was here.
I was never sure myself as to the motives of Chas for posting these kinds of dogmatic essays, thinking sometimes he was giving us a rest to see how stupid we might be, and other times wondering if he actually believed what he was writing, although I appreciated the fact that he did, because, as I say, Chas provided us with a great deal of intellectual exercise, which is good for the mind, because the mind is a muscle that requires constant exercise to keep it from becoming flaccid.
So I do miss Chas, and certainly wish him well, and hope that some day, he is able to break free from the culture that shut him off from his own connection to the divine within, so that he could not recognize the divine within his fellow human beings!
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNELLER: Now, I realize I may have lost some readers at this point.
I am okay with that, in fact I’d rather work with folks who, like me, are on a search and have not abandoned that search to an easy answer or worse, ideas other folks tell them are true.
I believe the mind works best when it is open, much like a parachute. (been waiting years to use that line somewhere – just seemed right).
*********************************
Intellectual snobbery is a disposition to derive your sense of importance from your membership in some community that confers prestige by its intellectual excellence, and to discount the importance of people from communities that cannot (or appear to you unable to) claim such excellence.
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNELLER: Now that we know the meanings of these three very distinct greetings from three very distinct cultures, what is my point of writing this? My point is clearly this, to point out to you that certain ancient cultures and peoples recognized the divine within us all. A strong statement, I realize. And it goes against the grain of every teaching in Western culture today. In fact, Western teachings are the antithesis of these three phrases. We say hello, pleased to meet you, nice to make your acquaintance, greetings and/or the pleasure is mine. All of which say very little of our actual feelings in meeting someone new. Much less, our perception of ourselves transposed to another fellow human being.
*****************************************
One of the things we long-term readers of the Cape Charles Mirror could always depend on back when Chas Cornweller would make his appearances was that Chas always had a truckload of red meat to throw out to we, his avid readers, and of course, this essay above here from July 23, 2017, was no exception.
How great were the Sunday mornings when cup of coffee in hand, we were presented with yet another intellectual exercise from Chas designed to test our mental capacity and knowledge of reality, like a version of the New York Time Sunday cross-word puzzle on steroids, and as said, this essay above here was true to that goal Chas had set forth for himself, to lift us benighted savages out here in the wilds and hinterlands of America, that being that part of it outside the corporate limits of Cape Charles, up out of a state of ignorance, and make us too, divine, as was the case on 16 January 27 BC when the Roman Senate gave the Roman dictator Octavian the new title of Augustus, where augustus is from the Latin word augere, which means “to increase” and can be translated as “illustrious one” or “sublime,” which term was a title of religious authority rather than political one, and it indicated that Octavian now approached divinity.
Now, that actuality, or reality, of course, chopped the legs right out from under the argument of Chas that Western culture does not recognize the divine in each of us, precisely because Rome was the epitome of Western culture,
And we cannot forget from our high school history teachings that the Roman senate proposed and voted for the deification of Livia Drusilla, the wife of Octavian, and before all of that, who can forget that the Roman senate formally conferred upon Julius Caesar the title of Divus, “the deified,” and ordered a temple to be erected for his worship?
So “divinity,” contrary to what Chas was telling us as a test, I believe, of our cognitive abilities to see if we actually paid attention in our high school history courses, or were we merely goofing off, or out smoking dope and snorting coke like Hussein Obama, is very much embedded in our Western culture, which, of course, takes us to the Bible, itself, where when the Jerusalem priests brought Jesus to Pilate, the first question Pilate asked was, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (Luke 23).
In Biblical scholarship. of which there is plenty, it is stated with authority that a historical understanding of the political world in which Pilate lived makes it clear that his question was a religious one, because at this time, Romans knew of a number of people who had been identified as divine, as gods, and all of them had been kings of one kind or another, so that in this light, Pilate’s question was only natural given the charges Jesus faced.
As high school history informs us, human kings were long identified as gods in ancient Egypt, and upon their ascension, they became filled with the divine power of kingship from the god Ra, and their role was understood as helping the gods maintain divine order (maat) on earth, so that upon their death, each one became a full god, and they received worship at their mortuary temples.
More important to Pilate, however, was the deification of Roman leaders, especially Caesar Augustus, whose given name was Octavian.
After becoming the sole leader of Rome and its empire in 30 B.C., as was stated above, Octavian was given the title “Augustus” in 27 B.C., and Augustus also adopted the title “imperator caesar divi filius,” which translates as “Commander Caesar, son of the deified one,” refering to his adopted father, Julius Caesar, who had been deified after his murder and was worshipped at a temple in Rome’s Forum.
During his life, Augustus came to be worshipped as well.
Indeed, in 19 B.C., some 33 years before his death in A.D. 14, the earliest temple to the living Augustus was erected.
His worship spread throughout the Mediterranean lands over the next few decades.
At his death, the Senate officially deified him, along with his adopted son Tiberius who had become emperor.
Emperor Tiberius had been a successful general for most of his life, and he did not seem to have wanted to rule or be considered divine.
He was a stolid military man; what did he want with godly honors?
So, he dealt with his new position by downplaying his divinity and emphasizing the god status of his predecessor, Caesar Augustus.
His promotion of the divine Augustus caused many new temples to him to be built throughout the empire.
Furthermore, Pontius Pilate would have been quite conscious of the Emperor Augustus as a god, for, during Augustus’ lifetime, King Herod had built a large temple to Augustus to adorn the new harbor at Caesarea Maritima.
Pilate’s headquarters were only a few blocks from the temple.
So, Pilate’s question “Are you the king of the Jews?” comes from a religious motive.
He was daily reminded that any human of divine status also was a king.
The two notions could not be separated in Roman minds.
Whether the question was respectful or sarcastic, say the scholars, we will never know, but, it is clear that divinity and kingship went together in Pilate’s mind, so that when he later placed a plaque on the cross saying this was the “King of the Jews” (John 19), the gospel writer would have seen it as a proclamation of Jesus’ divinity.
And there, people, thanks to Chas Cornweller, is some Western history that makes it incandescently and abundantly clear that, yes, indeed, Western culture most certainly does recognize the divinity in some of us, anyway, people of superior talents like Hussen Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior, and who on earth needs anymore?
Paul Plante says
CHAS CORNELLER: So, at this point, I have to ask the reader, how much of the divine purpose is attributed to mankind and how much is attributed to our perceptions of God or the Godhead or Divine Truth?
This is really the gist of this dissertation.
Is man divine or have we ascribed divinity to a concept in which we cannot measure, nor see, nor hear and can only grasp through faith?
************************************************************
Given that it is in fact mankind having this discussion, there is and can be no answer to the question how much of the divine purpose is attributed to mankind and how much is attributed to our perceptions of God or the Godhead or Divine Truth.
What in fact is the “divine purpose” in the first place?
Ask GOOGLE the question “What does the Bible say about divine purpose,” and the answer that comes back says nothing can happen without God ordaining it.
Given that, and speaking logically, something our dear friend Chas Cornweller never seemed to grasp or master the art of, if one does look around, one sees, and this is depending on one’s outlook, because all people do not see the world through the same set of eyes, or the same lens, or the same rose-colored glasses, that the world is in miserable shape overall, with greed, avarice, famine, starvation, war, pestilence, killings, shootings, racism, hatred, adultery, idolization of the material, recklessness and filth, which is our world today.
But truthfully, if one studies history objectively, when has it ever been otherwise?
And if God in fact ordains all things, then that would have to be what God ordained.
WHY?
Going back to the Bible, Psalm 57:2 says, “I cry out to God Most High, to God who fulfills his purpose for me,” which phrase is said to be key in understanding God’s purpose for our lives, and supposedly, God has numbered our days and will fulfill every purpose He has for us, with the caveat that our choices and actions also really matter.
In his dissertation, Chas tells us to look at the three ancient cultures he’d mentioned at the beginning of the article, they being Ancient India, Ancient Judea and Hawaii, and then he asks the rhetorical question, “were there struggles there, thousands of years, ago,” to which he answers “yes, I am sure there were,” but then he tries to qualify that by saying “but not nearly on the scale as today’s worldwide conflicts.”
If one reads the Bagavad Gita from the second century B.C., which work recounts a dialogue in the moments leading up to the war between the Pandava warrior Arjuna and his charioteer and trusted advisor, Krishna, who turns out to be a worldly incarnation of Vishnu, a god who serves as the Supreme Being in many forms of Hinduism, one is in fact confronted with war.
And interestingly, the Gita tells us that God’s original name is Krishna, but that He has unlimited names, among them being Rāma, Allah, Jehovah, Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Padmanābha, Ananta, Keśava, and Mukunda. which implies that Krishna is neither another demigod nor He is the God of a particular class of people.
And the Gita further declares God to be Krishna, the Supreme Person, who is not judgmental or envious but a loving and lovable person, so that the sweetest aspect of Bhagavad Gita is that it glorifies the relationship between Krishna and His devotees – how they serve Him unconditonally and how He reciprocates with them affectionately.
So to get back to Chas, and his question “is man divine or have we ascribed divinity to a concept in which we cannot measure, nor see, nor hear and can only grasp through faith,” the only possible answer is that it all depends on who you are addressing the question to, because there is no answer but what you want the answer to be.