This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 219.127.251.137 (talk) at 00:06, 20 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:06, 20 February 2008 by 219.127.251.137 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Eastern Orthodoxy Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Buddhist links
The idea of using the prayer of the heart to achieve some sort of clarity of thought or depth of concentration is an idea adopted from Buddhists and other eastern philosophies either directly or indirectly. In any case, the practitioner’s goal may require concentration and focus, but these are not the goals. The goal is humility and contrition for ones sins. Phiddipus 9:28, 12 Nov 2004 (PST)
I have extensively edited the page on the Jesus Prayer. I hope that I have given adequate references. 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The assertion above by Phiddipus that the Jesus Prayer, or Prayer of the Heart, or Hesychasm, depends on 'Buddhists and other eastern philosophies either directly or indirectly' is something that would need to be proved. It never has. 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- OM, you misunderstand what I said...What I said was in responce to the previous revision of the article at that time which claimed that the goal of the Jesus prayer was to achieve clarity of thought and depth of concentration. My responce was a disagreement to that statement. Such goals as clarity of thought and depth of concentration are not Orthodox Christian goals but goals more appropriate to Buddhist and other eastern, non christian philosopies. The Orthodox Christian goal in reciting the Jesus Prayer is to seek humility and contrition for ones sins. Phiddipus 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. What you say is correct. However, there is still a bit of confusion. While it is true that, in the sense that the West understands raja yoga, the goal of the Jesus Prayer is not to achieve clarity of thought and depth of concentration, you are creating an unfortunate dichotomy between that and compunction and humility, as if we had to choose one or the other. It is true that there is one school in the practice of the Jesus Prayer that emphasizes compunction and humility, cultivating tears. The problem arises in the practice of Hesychasm. For in a basic text of Hesychasm, Pros Theodoulon, by St Hesychios, closely connected to the Ladder of Divine Ascent of St John of Sinai, the goal of the Hesychast, or pratitioner of the Jesus Prayer, is to achieve sobriety (Gr: nepsis), the highest stage of which is the guard of the mind. This is a freedom from tempting thoughts (Gr: logismoi). This practice of sobriety is certainly integrated into the cultivation of humility (is there a Christian spirituality that does NOT cultivate humility?) and certainly does not frown on compunction. However, it does not cultivate feelings of compunction and humility. Instead, it aims for a sobriety which is similar to the clarity of thought and depth of concentration you speak of as being Eastern, although not merely for the sake of such clarity and concentration, which admittedly was your point. This sobriety is integrated into the continuous invocation of Jesus Christ by the Hesychast, and combined with an Eros for Jesus Christ. Hence it is a Christian sobriety. The Hesychast has a very intense but very sober relationship with Jesus Christ. If there is any problem with this, please reply. With best wishes 09:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Text of the prayer
Where is it?
- The text as taught to me by the Greek Orthodox monks following the traditions of the monastery of of St John on Patmos is
- "Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, have Mercy on Me, the Sinner". When said in community the last part is changed to "Have Mercy on us". --Phiddipus 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- One version I heard recited aloud at a monastery in Greece was: «Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με.» "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me." MishaPan 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Intro
Cut form intro:
- However, a number of different repetitive prayer formulas have been attested in the history of Eastern Orthodox monasticism (e.g. the Prayer of St Ioannikios, the repetitive use of which by St Ioannikios (754–846) is described in his Life; the more recent practice of St Nicholas Velimirovich (1880–1956)). Sometimes the Jesus Prayer is alternated with an invocation to the Mother of God: "Most Holy Theotokos, save us." In such a case, the practitioner repeats, say, 400 Jesus Prayers and then 100 invocations of the Mother of God.
Doesn't belong in intro; just not sure where to paste it. --Uncle Ed 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it into the article (new section). adriatikus | 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In Spanish
I was surprised not to find the prayer in Spanish given. I have translated it for the reader. Note the similarity to the Portuguese. If anyone knows a more official version, feel free to correct my translation. cwb 70.161.208.216 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Translations
Would some of you please check your translations for this prayer. I can see at the very least the Latin translation is incorrect as MEI is a genitive not an accusative or a dative. The Dative MIHI is grammatically the correct one but that depends on how the prayer is actually used by Latin native speakers. Some Latin speakers copy the case of the Greek in prayers of Greek origin and that would lead to an accusative here. Again, please check this and the others to make sure the translations are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.195.64 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1) According to (search for "misereo"), the verb is used with the genitive.
- 2) "(...) is actually used by Latin native speakers" ? Hehe. adriatikus | talk 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As an after thought, you could probably track down the Aramaic (Syriac and Neo), Coptic, Ge'ez and Armenian versions of this prayer to round out the liturgical languages. If this prayer is important to those parts of Christianity at all they there will be a version. I could generate the Coptic but not the others. But then again, if the prayer is not used by those Churches, then there would be no point as it wouldn't exist in their liturgical language for a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.195.64 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The liturary idiom of the Psalms uses the Genitive but modern day Latin speakers naturally want to use Miserere with a Dative. This is why I called it into question. Any translation here should refect actual use if indeed this prayer is used in the language in question. I do not need to be refered to a dictionary to know that Miserere CAN take a genitive but the issue is modern Latin usage or even historical Christian usage. I certainly am not going to go up to a Latin speaker waving a dictionary and telling that they should change to the genitive when the normal way is to use the dative. The most frequent use of this verb in the second person imperative is with NOBIS in the liturgy. Of course we can find NOSTRI in the psalms but that is not the current spoken form.
The fact that you would refer me to a dictionary, even one from a laudable Christian university as Notre Dame certainly is, shows me that you are probably not a Latin speaker and not well equiped to answer the question. This causes me to have even greater concern over the translations of this prayer here. However, I did look this prayer up in the Latin Enchiridion and found that a version of this prayer is indeed promulgated by the Church that uses Miserere with Mei. This would put the issue of the case that is acceptable to use to rest but brings up other issues. The version of the prayer that is sanctioned for use in the Latin Rite is not the full version that you have listed here. The version listed is shorter, Domine Christe miserere mei. Of course onto this one MAY add the other bits and there certainly would not be an objection to doing so for private prayer.
Lastly, let me address this HE HE that you put in your reply. I find this extremely lacking in charity and going into the area of insult. I do not know the level of insult implied by this so I will address it at a moderate level. This kind of attitude should be knocked off completely. Just because you are willfully ignorant of modern day Latin Speakers does not put their existance into question. Arguement such as <Latin is a dead language> or < Cicero would have said jadda jadda jadda> do not impress me. Latin is certianly not dead nor is Cicero the exemplar of Latin for Christian among whom Cicero is not counted as a member. <But Cicero...>; I do not care at all, AT ALL. Classical Latin is not the standard to be used by Christians, especially not on matters of correct form in prayer.
Now that this issue is for me at least put to rest my only suggestion for this article is that it would be fitting considering the subject matter to seperate the vernaculars languages from the Liturgical languages and list the Liturgical language first. This would allow Aramaic, Coptic and Latin to be featured in their proper place above languages such as Arabic, which though widely used by the Church in some areas is not counted as a Liturgical, Scriptural or Legal language to be looked to. This is why the Maronites, Melchites, Armeneans, Syrians and Coptic Churches retain their original Liturgical language and only use Arabic out of nessecity.
Categories: