As rendered by Mark Hathaway (www.visioncraft.org) based on the work of
Neil Douglas-Klotz (www.abwoon.com - Prayers of the Cosmos, Harper & Row,
1990). May be reproduced in whole or in part if this citation is included.
O Divine Womb,
birthing forth the river of blessing which runs through all,
Soften the ground of our being,
and hallow in us a space for the planting of thy presence.
In our depths,
sow thy seed with its greening-power
that we might be midwives to thy Reign.
Then, let each of our actions
bear fruit in accordance with thy desire.
Impart to us the wisdom to bring forth the gifts of the earth
and share them daily according to the needs of each being,
And restore that which has been usurped
by injustice to its rightful owners,
as we restore to others that which is not our own.
Do not let us be seduced
by that which would divert us from our purpose,
but make us sensitive to the moment at hand.
For from thy fertile soil is born the creativity,
the life-energy, and the dance,
from birthing to birthing. Ameyn.
O Source of the Wave,
which envelops and embraces the cosmos,
sustaining and renewing it at each moment,
Penetrate the deepest recesses of our hearts,
and there create a space for thy holy shrine.
In this nuptial chamber,
conceive the creative potency of thy Reign,
So that we may give birth to the embodiment of thy desire:
As from the emanation, so too in form.
With passion and soul let us generate
that which is needed to sustain life this day.
Release us from the bondage of our karma,
as we free others from the captivity of their guilt.
And do not let superficiality cause us to vacillate,
but rather free us from all that impedes growth.
For from thee bursts forth all that
dignifies, gives life, and astonishes,
from cycle to cycle, restoring wholeness. Ameyn.
O creative Breath,
ebbing and flowing through all forms,
Free us from all constrictions,
so that the current of thy life
may move in us without hinderance.
Empower us with thy creativity,
and clothe us with royal dignity,
So that,fully at one with the vortex of thy desire,
sacred actions pour forth from us
with each breath we release.
Renew in us this day
our lifebreath, vigour, and passion,
And untie the tangled threads of destiny which bind us,
as we release others from the entanglement of past mistakes.
Do not let us lose ourselves in distraction,
but by the way of the breath,
lead us into mindfulness.
For from thy depths pour forth
the Way, the Life, and the Splendour,
from age to age, it is so. Ameyn.
O Source of the Radiance,
dancing in and about all-that-is,
Shine forth into the depths of our beings,
and enkindle there the flame of thy essence.
Grant that it may blaze forth
and fill us with its searing creativity,
Until, fully united with thy fiery desire,
light pours out from us, taking form.
May we be revitalised each day
with nourishment for body and spirit,
And be liberated from all that oppresses us,
as we struggle to mend the fabric of our world.
Let us not be enmeshed in the nets of illusion,
but illuminate the opportunities of the present moment.
For from thee shine forth
the precepts, the sustenance, and the generative fire,
from centring to centring. Ameyn.
O Silent Sound,
whose shimmering music pulsates
at the heart of each and all,
Clear a space in us where thy melody
may be perceived in its purity.
Let the rhythm of thy counsel reverberate through our lives,
so that we move to the beat of justice, love, and peace.
Then, our whole being at one with thy song,
grant that the earth may be filled
with the beauty of thy voice.
Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share
what each being needs to grow and flourish,
And give us courage to embrace our shadow with emptiness,
as we embrace others in their darkness.
But let us not be captive to uncertainty,
nor cling to fruitless pursuits.
For from thee springs forth
the rhythm, the melody, and the harmony,
which restores all to balance, again and again. Ameyn.
O Parent of the Universe,
manifesting thyself as generative energy,
Bend over us and remove
all that clutters our being
and set apart a place
where thy sacredness may dwell.
Fill us with thy creativity,
so that we may be empowered to bear
the fruit of thy vision.
Then, moving to the heartbeat of thy desire,
make us the embodiment of thy compassion.
Drawing from the ground of our humanity
grant that we may renew each other
with love, understanding, and sustenance.
Empty us of frustrated hopes and despair,
as we restore others to a renewal of vision.
And let us not fall into agitation,
but save us from precipitous actions.
For thou art the ground
of the fruitful vision, the birthing-power, and the fulfilment,
as all is gathered and made whole once again. Ameyn.
Abwoon d'bwashmaya ("Our Father who art in heaven")
image of creation, of giving birth to the universe. Abwoon can indeed be
translated as "father", but it can equally be rendered as the word for
parenting (in either a physical or spiritual sense). At another level, it
presents the image of the divine breath (spirit) flowing out of oneness,
creating the whole diversity of forms. D'bwashmaya conjures the images of
light, sound, and vibration spreading out and pervading all. In essence,
then, "heaven" is conceived not so much as a place as a dimension of reality
that is present everywhere.
Some possible renditions of this phrase in its totality would
"O Source of the Radiance, dancing in and about all-that-is" or "O creative
breath, ebbing and flowing through all forms." Again, these are just
examples of the many possibilities that exist simultaneously in the original
text (which includes as well the translation we normally pray). Still, they
challenge us to be open to new ways of conceiving of both God and heaven.
Nethqadash shmakh ("Hallowed be thy name") presents
the image of
someone bending over to clear a space where the sacred may dwell. Shmakh is
derived from the same root as the Aramaic word for heaven; it means both
name and the concrete manifestation of creative energy. The phrase in its
entirety could be: "Soften the ground of our being, and hallow a space for
the planting of your presence" or "Free us from all constrictions, so that
the current of your life may move in us without hindrance." We are invited
here to let go of all which keeps God from entering our lives, to sweep
clean the chamber of our heart. Jesus' symbolic clearing of the temple
resonates strongly with this image. To what extent do we have a marketplace
in our own beings? What clutters the space where God desires to dwell
Making room for the sacred prepares us for the next step: Teytey
malkuthakh ("Thy kingdom come"). Malkuthakh is a very rich word, and one
central to Jesus' message. While normally translated as "kingdom", its
roots are actually feminine (so "queendom" might be more accurate!). It
conveys the idea of guiding principles, of that which empowers us to go
forward in the face of all difficulties, and of a creative potential ready
to be realised. To me, it evokes the image of the fragile blade of grass
that slowly breaks apart the hardest of concrete. Teytey implies a certain
urgency in the coming, or a vision waiting to be fulfilled. The image is
that of a nuptial chamber, a place of new beginnings. The phrase could be
rendered, then, as "Fill us with thy creativity, so that we may be empowered
to bear the fruit of your vision" or "In our depths, sow your seed with its
greening-power, so that we might be midwives to thy Reign." This part of
the prayer calls us to walk through life with a royal dignity, ready to face
difficulties with creativity and hope.
Nehwey tzevyanach aykanna d'bwashmaya aph b'arha ("Thy
will be done
on earth as it is in heaven") can be considered the heart of Jesus' prayer.
The "will" referred to here connotes a deep desire causing one's whole being
to move toward a goal with the certainty that the effort will bear fruit.
In some sense, it is living as though God's vision were already a reality.
Arha ("earth") carries a strong feeling of solidity and support; it is
something that is fully materialised. Here, then, we pray that the sense of
"I can" expressed in the line above be put fully into action. The phrase in
its entirety could be: "Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance
with your desire." or "Moving to the heartbeat of your purpose, make us the
embodiment of your compassion." In essence, we pray that all we do be an
act of co-creation with God.
Hawvlan lachma d'sunqanan yaomana ("Give us this day our
bread") asks, not only for bread in the physical sense, but also for all
that we need to truly thrive. In Aramaic, the word for "bread" (lachma) is
directly related to the word for "wisdom" (hochma). We ask that it be
given, but also that it be brought forth from the very depths of our own
selves. In sum, we pray: "Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share
what each being needs to grow and flourish" or "With passion and soul, let
us generate from within that which is needed to sustain life this day."
Washboqlan khaubayn (wakhtahayn) aykanna daph khnan shbwoqan
l'khayyabayn ("And forgive us our debts as we forgive those who are in debt
to us") conveys the idea of untying the knots of past mistakes. To forgive
is to return things to their state of original freedom. This is something
well described in the Old Testament in terms of the Jubilee year where all
is returned to its original owners. We are called in this line to let go of
all that holds us back from the fulfilment of God's desire: our failures,
our despair, our frustrations. A good translation might be: "Untie the
tangled threads of destiny which bind us, as we release others from the
entanglement of past mistakes" or even "Empty us of frustrated hopes and
desires, as we restore others to a renewal of vision." Certainly this part
of the prayer calls us as well to forgive debts in the economic sense.
Personally, though, I especially like the idea of letting go of frustrations
and restoring a sense of vision. In a world where change sometimes seems
impossible, we are challenged to constantly renew our hope and to animate
those who have fallen into despair.
In the line Wela tahlan l'nesyuna, ela patzan min bisha ("And
not put us to the test, but deliver us from evil"), we pray that we not let
ourselves be distracted from the true purpose of our lives by that which is
essentially trivial; we ask that we not be seduced by superficiality and
In Aramaic, bisha ("evil") is conceived in terms
of an action which
is unripe, of a fruit that is either immature or rotten. This calls us to
be sensitive to the moment at hand, to carry out the right action at the
right time. Hence, we pray: "But let us not be captive to uncertainty, nor
cling to fruitless pursuits" or "Do not let us be seduced by that which
would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the opportunities of
the present moment."
The final line recapitulates the whole prayer: Metol dilakhie
malkutha wahayla wateshbukhta l'ahlam almin, ameyn ("For the kingdom, the
power, and the glory are yours, now and forever, amen.") Hayla
(traditionally translated as "power") is the energy that gives and sustains
all life. Teshbukhta ("glory") evokes the image of things returned to a
state of harmony and equilibrium. The phrase could be rendered as: "For you
are the ground of the fruitful vision, the birthing-power, and the
fulfilment, as all is gathered and made whole once again."
The Renditions of the Aramaic Lord's Prayer and the above
explanations are based on a course given by Saadi Neil Douglas-Klotz at the
Institute for Culture and Creation Spirituality during the spring of 1991.
Those interested in learning more about the Aramaic versions of Jesus'
sayings should read Prayers of the Cosmos by Neil Douglas-Klotz (Harper and
Victor Frost of New York City, writes of the 1998 version below:
"The prayer is a beautiful paraphrase. In both Matthew
and Luke, Jesus
asks his followers to pray 'in this manner (or way)'; not to be so many
parrots! This kind of paraphrase, fitting the cosmology of its author/free
translator, would doubtless have delighted the master."
Victor quotes a similar version, done by Mark's teacher,
Saadi Neil Douglas-Klotz of the Sufi Order of the West
at http://www.freestate.net/johgrove/lordpryr.htm as follows:
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:26:13 -0600
Subject: the "translation"
This post contains information relevant to the text that is
being called a
"translation of the Lord's Prayer."
Please understand that I am NOT disputing the value you may
have found in
the poetry that was distributed. I have no issue whatsoever with whether it
is useful, comforting, whatever. My entire issue with it has to do with the
claim that it is a valid, HONEST "translation." If it is not a
translation, it should not [my opinion here] continue to be passed off as
such. The text could be circulated on its own merits and called what it
truthfully is and honesty would be preserved.
I followed every lead I had in attempts to find the enigmatic
Hathaway" (the only name attached to the "translation" of the Lord's
Prayer). I could not find him.
So, I contacted a scholar of languages and provided him with
the text of the
Prayer in its reworded state and asked him to respond with information
regarding its literal, textual validity.
He responded thus:
This is not even a paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer. This is a New Age "respeaking" of the ancient prayer to put it kindly. There's nothing wrong with retelling the tale, but it should not be presented as a translation; it absolutely is not such.
The traditional version of the prayer is a solid translation. In the version you quote the writer clearly seeks to define the nature of "God the Father," forinstance, and uses the term Cosmic Birther. This is in an attempt to define what a"Father in heaven" would be philosophically. As we are talking about the"Universal Father," whom I also accept as the Universal Father/Mother even though the text says literally "father," that which is birthed is the cosmos. Hence God may be called the Cosmic Birther. At each step however we get more into interpretation and farther away from translation. To translate these words in this way is to leave out the Parenthood of the "Father," which is both a key metaphor employed by the biblical Jesus as well as a doctrinal pillar of the Church. God, according to Jesus' teaching, is much more than a Creator. God is a concerned and involved Parent. The use of the phrase "Birther" rather than "Father" is like calling someone your "biological parent." While it may be technically accurate, it suggests an absent parent, an annonamous "sperm donor." The "Father" spoken of by Jesus in the Bible is a very present and deeply involved Personal Deity/Parent.
Those who wish to unite Christianity closer with the Universalism of say Mind Science or the New Age Movement need to replace the Personal Deity with an Impersonal force of nature. "Cosmic Birther" is much closer to this ideal than a personal "Father Who is in Heaven."
Retelling the Bible in modern language and contemporary understandings is not, of,itself, a bad thing. It can help to make the Word more relevant. Translators must be very careful however to not change the meanings, whether literal or implied, in the texts they work on. The version you offer here is a very different one from that presented in the historic translations of the Bible, the textus receptus, the textus vaticanus etc. as well as the extant Aramaic fragments. So, if your question is whether or not this is an accurate translation of the text, the answer is absolutely no. Its a philosophic interpretation which adds a lot of personal ideas and cosmology in as well. If the question is whether or not this recasting is beneficial or spiritually helpful, only you can decide this.
Here's the best translation I can come up with for you:
Our Omnipresent Father-Mother,
hallowed [or honored] be your name.
May Your dominion [or universal mastery] be established.
May Your will be done, on earth
as it is in the heavens [where the planets travel
harmoniously in their orbits under the Your Direction].
Give us this day our daily bread [and all other needs
as well, so that we can more fully love and serve you
through our service to others].
And forgive us our debts [to all creation],
as we also have forgiven our debtors [knowing that
there's a divine reciprocity between our willingness to forgive others
and our receiving Your mercy and blessings].
And do not let us enter into temptation (to prejudice,
greed and other forms of non-loving thought and behavior).
But protect us from error.
For the dominion [or righteous administration] and the
power [the moral authority and ability] and the glory
[or the endless celebratory songs of triumph] are yours forever,
Amen [as has been said, so shall it be].
What is included in the brackets is interpretation on my part, not translation. They are however directly implied in the meaning of the words. More than this, I believe, and you leave the realm of translation and move into the area of interpretation and personal philosophy.
Hope this helps,
John L. Phillips
Jagannath Prakash (real name)
Rev. John L. Phillips (English name)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:44:05 -0800
From: "John L. Phillips" <email@example.com>
Christianity, both in its infancy as well as in its
development, is a monotheistic religious and spiritual system and so any
translation of the prayer which is not monotheistic is, on that point alone,
Here's a literal translation of the Aramaic version of the prayer:
Our Father a woon
who [is] in the heavens d'wash-maya
holy be nith-ka-dash
your name shmakh
let come tay thay
your kingdom mal coo-thakh
let be neway
your desire [or will] sev-ya-nakh
even as in ai-ken na
so on earth op barah
give us hawlan
that we need d'soon-ka-nan
day to day yaw mana
forgive us wash wok-lan
our offenses kho-bain
even as ai-ken na
we also have dap-kha nan
our offenders el kha-ya-uen
let not oo-la
us enter ta-lan
into temptation el nis-yona
but el la
part us pa-san
from evil [error] men bee-sha
and authority oo-khayla
and glory [songs] oo-tish-bokh ta
from ages el al-am
through ages al-meen
sealed in trust, faith and truth a-men
To: John Phillips
From: Tom Atlee
Thank you for the literal translation, John. However, some people think that Jesus was one of the Essenes or other such spiritual group who had deep ties with India (whose religions are not particularly monotheistic, and deeply mystical). Such people (and some non-Christians) may be deeply skeptical of official sacred texts, knowing that if Christ had tried to introduce such radical changes in the Jewish beliefs of his day, his later followers (and especially Church theologists who sidelined the Apocrapha) might very well have altered his language.
My website, unlike yours, is not a religious one, but does have an implicit spirituality about it. If we are talking "Is this a real translation," then the standard for that is not religious at all, but a matter of whether the translator knows the language that is being translated and whether they have a reason to alter (beyond the inevitable interpretations involved in all translation) the meaning of the text in the translation process.
You refer generically to "2000 years of scholarly research and doctrinal history" when that history has been fraught with disagreements and manipulation of translations for ideological/theological purposes. Your using that as a solid standard leaves me a bit confused. It would be VERY helpful to me and others who are not biblical scholars, if you (who imply that you are very knowledgeable about the 2000 years of scholarly research) would choose a non-religious expert -- especially a non-Christian one -- of which I suspect there are many -- who happens to be an authority on Aramaic, who provides a translation and/or commentary on the Lord's Prayer that would put this matter to rest. I appreciate your literal translation, below; can you provide a citation where it comes from? It may not be obvious to you, but to someone not committed to you or your ideas, there is nothing about what you wrote that would lead me to believe it is anything more accurate than the other "translation" -- which also came with no citation -- which is, after all, the point we are trying to resolve, is it not?
I appreciate your efforts to serve broader understanding, which your website makes clear is obviously a strong motivation of yours.
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 14:19:18 -0800
From: "John L. Phillips" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Some people think that Jesus was one of the Essenes or other such spiritual
> group who had deep ties with India (whose religions are not particularly
> monotheistic, and deeply mystical).
John: There's no existent evidence that the Essenes had links
to India. I
personally think it likely, but the proof is not there to my knowledge. If we
accept the idea that Jesus studied in India, as is suggested by several popular
books, and if we accept the idea that he studied at Jagannatha Puri (and hence
the story about his condemning the caste system and being lowered over the wall
in a basket by a young priest and thus escaping the wrath of the Caste
Authorities, which is one of the more common stories), then it is important to
note that for the most part Jagannatha Puri is not a Mayavadhi or Impersonalist
temple. The Vaisnavas of Puri largely reject the teachings of Vedanta - the
so-called "final word on the Vedas - and accept a monotheistic version of
Personalism. Hence, while in India, Jesus did not, at least in this account,
study under Impersonalists. There is a thriving segment within the Indian
Sanatana Dharma or "Hindu" system which is both monotheistic and personalist in
As for the Essenes, they were devout Jews who largely isolated
themselves due to
what they viewed as the negative inroads of Hellenism - Greek philosophical
influences on Hebrew religion and culture. Hellenism, as you know, owes a great
deal to Impersonalist "Hindu" philosophy. It seems unlikely that the Essenes'
contacts with India, if they did occur, would have been related to the Vedantic,
Shankaristic elements of the religious orders there. Again however, there is no
solid evidence for either the contact nor the Essene connection with Jesus or the
> Such people (and some non-Christians)
> may be deeply skeptical of official sacred texts, knowing that if Christ
> had tried to introduce such radical changes in the Jewish beliefs of his
> day, his later followers (and especially Church theologists who sidelined
> the Apocrapha) might very well have altered his language.
John: Perhaps. It is also possible that had Jesus taught a
more Indian philosophy
his converts, and those who came later - who actively sought to separate
themselves from Judaism - would have taken advantage of the non-Hebrew teachings
to show the Romans and others that they were not Jewish converts. Who can say?
The extent manuscripts, etc. from which modern translations
of the Bible are
taken, are remarkably intact. The differences which do exist, between the textus
receptus (upon which the Authorized King James version is based) and the
Vaticanus (a major source of the new versions like the NIV) and other sources are
not that far apart doctrinally. While we can not honestly claim that the various
translations of the Bible currently in use are exactly accurate renderings of the
originals - how could we as they contradict one another in minor points - we can
confidently say that the huge amount of extant source material demonstrates that
what we know of as the Bible is a faithful presentation of the oldest extant
copies and source codes. It can furthermore be demonstrated that if, in the case
of the Christian New Testament, any major alterations occurred in the texts, they
occurred within the first 200 years of Church history. This, considering what we
know of the pre-Constantinian Church fathers, is very very unlikely. When you add
the fact that we know the Hebrew Scriptures are are almost exactly in harmony
with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the thought that the Christian scriptures would be
altered when the Hebrew would not be, leaves, as far as I'm concerned, no
question about the dependability of the Scriptures as they currently exist - I
personally prefer and use the Authorized King James version. I wont comment on
the Apocrypha at this point as they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
> My website, unlike yours, is not a religious one, but does have an implicit
> spirituality about it. If we are talking "Is this a real translation,"
> then the standard for that is not religious at all, but a matter of whether
> the translator knows the language that is being translated and whether they
> have a reason to alter (beyond the inevitable interpretations involved in
> all translation) the meaning of the text in the translation process.
John: I referred to the religious component because the prayer
is a religious
document and the followers of the religion which has preserved the text for these
two thousand years are in a better light, as far as historic understandings are
concerned, to pass on their wisdom. The prayer did not arise from a non religious
setting (even if Jesus got it from the Essene Teacher of Righteousness as we
sometimes hear, its meanings are implicitly religious in nature). You are
offering an alleged translation which contradicts every existent version and
translation of the prayer, whether in Greek or Aramaic
The translation which I offered is harmonious with every
other translation I've ever seen. Your "translation" challenges the
basic tenets of the Christian and Jewish religions, what we know of Essene
beliefs, as well as the standard transliteration of the Aramaic language and has
no support among any recognized scholar so far as I have seen.
> You refer generically to "2000 years of scholarly research and doctrinal
> history" when that history has been fraught with disagreements and
> manipulation of translations for ideological/theological purposes.
John: For this point to have any relevancy to this discussion
you would need to
demonstrate that scholars have disagreed about the meanings of Aramaic words.
This would be difficult. That authorities have debated interpretations is a
given. You are not saying that the prayer should be interpreted differently, a
point I might well agree with you on. You are questioning the universally
accepted transliteration and translation of the words.
> using that as a solid standard leaves me a bit confused. It would be VERY
> helpful to me and others who are not biblical scholars, if you (who imply
> that you are very knowledgeable about the 2000 years of scholarly research)
> would choose a non-religious expert -- especially a non-Christian one -- of
> which I suspect there are many -- who happens to be an authority on
> Aramaic, who provides a translation and/or commentary on the Lord's Prayer
> that would put this matter to rest.
John: Again, it is not I who am presenting a new and contrary
version of the
prayer so I hardly see why it falls to me to offer a scholar, Christian or
otherwise, to support my case.
I will however: Any Bible in the world. Any literal translation
of the prayer
published anywhere in the world. Write to any Aramaic study department at any
university, college, church, synagogue or mosque. The Aramaic words of
the prayer simply do not mean what you say they mean.
> I appreciate your literal translation,
> below; can you provide a citation where it comes from?
John: I translated it myself, so no, I can't offer a citation.
> It may not be
> obvious to you, but to someone not committed to you or your ideas, there is
> nothing about what you wrote that would lead me to believe it is anything
> more accurate than the other "translation" -- which also came with no
> citation -- which is, after all, the point we are trying to resolve, is it
John: No, it is not. The point you are making seems to be that
you believe your
translation is accurate and that presented by every translation of the prayer in
history is inaccurate. There is no debate among scholarly translators on how the
prayer should be translated. There is no significance difference in any published
translation with which I am familiar.
Words have literal meanings. The process of literally transliterating a text is
not usually where questions arise, when they do. Where questions tend to come up
is how the words are formed into coherent sentences or "translated" into some
language. For instance, "dwash-maya" means "heavens." Now, we can debate what
heaven is: Is it a literal place, a state of mind etc. however the word
"dwash-maya" means "heavens". What your translation is doing is transliterating
the words in ways which have no relationship to the Aramaic language in many
cases. This is not, therefore, a question of translation. If the transliteration
is faulty, the translation hasn't got a chance.
Your "translation" is not a translation. It is a
very loose paraphrase. What you
do with this paraphrase is of no consequence to me.
On 5/5/99 John Phillips wrote an email to Tom Atlee containing the following:
I acknowledged in my
first post that reading the texts in fresh ways can be very beneficial
spiritually. When I preach on this prayer I expand its literal meanings in an
attempt to make it more applicable to people's lives. I simply object
to calling the version posted on your site a "translation."
* * *
The reason there is so much diversity of beliefs within Christianity
is, in part,
because its clergy and scholarly practitioners are very sincere in their desire to
know the truth and understand what Jesus did and did not teach (yes, of course
there are many exceptions to this). If the universally accepted version were
incorrect or even questionable, that fact would have been pointed thousands of
times at least. People like Martin Luther would have challenged it, Biblical
translators would have challenged it/retranslated it (especially in the current
climate of competitive publishing). The thought is simply ridiculous.
One reference you might consider is Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible -
New Testament, page 169. While he doesn't include the text of the prayer, he does
not challenge it either. His comments are clearly made under the understanding
that the text is accurately translated. Mr. Asimov is an Agnostic.
From: Tom Atlee <email@example.com>
Date: 5 May 1999
I greatly appreciate your detailed responses and I will post the substantive parts on my website appending the "translation". I wrote orginally in my intro to my posting of this "translation" that "I can't vouch for the accuracy of the following (it came to me via email). However, I can vouch for its truth, usefulness, and inspiration. It moves me and centers me. -- Tom Atlee" all of which is true. In any case, the resulting flurry of communications about it has surfaced a large amount of interesting issues, ideas, and information which I think visitors to my website will value. Thanks for your considerable contributions.
Go well, and blessed be.