More Lotus

I'm reading The Lotus Sutra: A Contemporary Translation of a Buddhist Classic translated by Gene Reeves. I wrote a little bit about how The Lotus Sutra rewrote Buddhism in a recent post. I first learned about The Lotus Sutra from Donald Lopez Jr.. Lopez described The Lotus Sutra changing the theology of Buddhism. Reeves offers a less strict interpretation his introduction to his translation. I especially liked the following paragraph:

“It is also a very clever way to answer the question of how it is possible for one to overcome obstacles, however conceived, along the path of becoming a buddha. If ordinary human beings are completely under the sway of passions and delusions, by what power can they break through such a net of limitations? Some say that it is only by one’s own strength; one can be saved only by oneself. Others say that it is only by the power of Amida Buddha or perhaps Guan-yin that one can be led to awakening. The Lotus Sutra says that it is by a power that is at once one’s own and Shakyamuni Buddha’s. The Buddha really is embodied in the lives of ordinary people. He himself is both a one and a many.” Gene Reeves

Other religions have a similar dilemmas between God/gods and free will. Even the non-religious have a similar dilemma between determinism and free will.

Both is a great answer. It keeps responsibility on the individual, and people need to take responsibility. But it's also good to be able to let go to a high power. According to Reeves, Buddhism, like other religions, keep both ideas.

As an atheist/agnostic, I really like a solf determinism where free will and determinism are compatible. It's both!

More Dry

​It has been a while since I had a rant. I’ve almost ranted about face tattoos a couple times, but I’ll save that for a more dry day. 

More Dry

My dryer sucks. The default setting leaves clothes damp. So, before I start my dryer I have to adjust the settings which brings me to my rant. 

There are several series of settings. For example, “Time” has 20, 40, or 60 minutes. Temperature has high, medium, and low. 

But then there is a dryness series. “Damp dry.” Okay that makes perfect sense, I’d never choose that setting, but I get others might or certain materials may recommend it-I’m a wash and dry everything together guy. 

The next option for dryness is normal dry. Okay. I’d just say dry, but whatever. 

The next option! “More dry!”

Oxford Languages defines the adjective “dry” as, “free from moisture or liquid; not wet or moist.”

How can you get more not wet. You’re either moist or dry. You can’t get anymore dry than dry. It’d be like being more dead. When you are dead, you can’t get more dead. 

What really gets me is that if you want your clothes dry, you have to stoop to their stupidity and select “more dry.” Because for this asinine idiot dryer “normal dry” leaves 10-20% of your laundry damp. 

I should have used more exclamation marks and curse words. 

Until face tattoos…

Jimbo Out

My Dive into The Lotus Sutra

I'll probably read or listen to the entire Lotus Sutra. I'm especially interested in the commentaries. Below is what I'm consuming so far.

My Sources

The Lotus Sutra translated by Burton Watson: this is a free online version. The translation reads fine. This is where I read the first two chapters. It motivated me to check out the other sources below.

The Lotus Sutra: A Contemporary Translation of a Buddhist Classic translated by Gene Reeves: this is a modern translation. Reeves claims to use as few Sanskrit words and eastern terms as possible. So far I have only read Reeves' introduction. I'll update my opinion after I read some of his translation. I found his background information about the text and history to be very informative and interesting. I'm reading this from my phone on eBook through Libby.

The Lotus Sutra: Saddharma Pundarika Sutra or the Lotus of the True Law translated by Hendrik Kern: I started listening to this translation on Hoopla. It is the only audio version I have access to from my library. 

The Lotus Sutra: A Biography by Donald Lopez Jr: I didn't start this yet. But Lopez got me interested in the topic.

Exploring The Lotus Sutre: "Chapter Two: Expedient Means"

I read chapter two online here. This is a continuation of my previous post on chapter one, read it here.

The Lotus Sutra Profile

Authorship- like most ancient texts, there is no consensus as to when it was written, who wrote it, or the exact process of the ideas and composition. It was mostly likely written, edited, and complied by multiple authors, over multiple decades.

Dating- the ideas, stories, and sutras likely originated between 100 BCE-100 CE. This aligns with the emergence of Mahāyāna buddhism. It likely had oral and or textual origins in local Indian languages, like Prakrit, before being being composed in Sanskrit between 100-250 CE. 

Versions- chapters 2-9  are likely the oldest. Chapter 1 was likely a later addition. There is debate about the progression of the other chapters.

Translations-  The oldest surviving texts are Chinese translations. Dharmarakṣa (286 CE) is the oldest full Chinese translation, 27 chapters. Kumārajīva (406 CE) is the which is most influential Chinese translation; it is 28 chapters and the basis for East Asian tradition. 

Point of View- there is a third person omniscient narrator.

Frame- Chapter one was a cosmic setting. Chapter two is a lot more intimate with teacher and student. Chapter two is most likely the original beginning of oldest version of the The Lotus Sutra.  

Names and Terms 

Arhats-is one who has gained insight into the nature of existence, has achieved nirvana,^[1][2] and has been liberated from the endless cycle of rebirth.Mahāyāna considers arhatship provisional and not final.

Dharma-is a key concept in various Indian religions. The term dharma does not have a single, clear translation and conveys a multifaceted idea.In its most commonly used sense, dharma refers to an individual's moral responsibilities or duties; the dharma of a farmer differs from the dharma of a soldier, thus making the concept of dharma dynamic. In Buddhism, dharma is the truth about reality.

Mahāyāna Buddhists- meaning "Great Vehicle," is one of the two major branches of Buddhism that emphasizes achieving enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, rather than just oneself. 

Nirvana- is the concept of an individual's passions being extinguished as the ultimate state of salvation, release, or liberation from suffering (duḥkha) and from the cycle of birth and rebirth (saṃsāra).^[3][4][5]

Samādhi- in the Indian religions, is a state of meditative consciousness. In a Buddhist context, samadhi is a state of intensified awareness and focus. In the context of The Lotus Sutra, this is the 

Śākyamuni Buddha- (Sanskrit: Śākya-muni, “Sage of the Śākya [clan]”) is the historical Buddha, the human teacher who lived and taught in northern India in the 5th–4th century BCE. Born as Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli: Siddhattha Gotama). He will be the speaker of the sutra that makes up The Lotus Sutra. 

Śāriputra- one of the top disciples of the Buddha.

TLDR

"At that time the World-Honored One calmly arose from his samadhi and addressed Shariputra, saying: 'The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and immeasurable.'" The Buddha explains how his wisdom can't be taught. His traditional teachings-the traditional teachings of the historical Buddha- were provisional teachings. But, since Śāriputra asks three times, the Buddha decides to teach his true teachings that all people are bound for Buddhahood. The following chapters of The Lotus Sutra, according to The Lotus Sutra, are the true teachings of the Buddha. 

Reading Response

The first sentence is very abrupt. I like it. It reminds me of Siddhartha by Herman Hesse: enlightenment can't be taught. This is a common Indian metaphysical idea. And then ironically, because Buddha was asked three times, the Buddha decides to explain the unexplainable.

The cosmic mytholog from chapter 1 is mostly absent in Chapter 2. This solidifies the theory that chapter 2 was added later. It's clear that the frame of chapter 2- with the teacher-student dialogue- was the original set up for the parables and teachings that follow. 

Chapter 2 reminds me of a new testament. The old teachings were not correct enough. So a new testament is created. As if the Buddha a few 100 years later after death has had an additional awakening. His traditional teachings were baby steps because people are too dumb (my words not the sutras). Now, without any explanation to how people have changed, the true teaching can be presented and taught to humans. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're not alone.

The Mahāyāna decide- discover if you want to be generous- that everyone is destined to be a Buddha. This is a nicer idea and it makes sense why a monk or follower of Buddha would struggle with this dilemma. What good is saving yourself if others are stuck in samsara? For the Christian analogy- what good is saving yourself if all your loved ones are stuck in Hell. Could one really be happy in Heaven knowing their friends and family are in Hell?

I personally like the progression of this idea. But there is a problem for first century Buddhist, the historical Buddha and traditional teachings, don't mention this idea. Nothing a few stories, parables, and teachings can't solve. Thus a likely origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism and The Lotus Sutra.

Take one of the Buddha's top students and create a dialogue between them where the Buddha explains why his previous teachings weren't the true teachings. This isn't that crazy because many Asians already agree with ideas like enlightenment and wisdom can't be verbally expressed. So there is a logic to why the 

Buddha may have intentionally taught people a lesser approach.

It's funny, because the idea is quite simple. But, I guess, the idea didn't spread well enough, so later Mahāyānas added the cosmic mythology of chapter one along with additional sutras and an updated theology.

The problem I see is blatantly obvious. Who is stopping some other group from sending The Buddha's Last messenger? They would have to present a better message. But otherwise, that's it. Which leads to my last response.

The Lotus Sutra only has authority through its message. The cosmic assembly of Chapter 1 increases the stakes and scope, but it doesn't really add any additional proof. It doesn't even claim to have hundreds of other eye witnesses. It shows everyone who's anyone is there, and then two of the top dogs further explain the significance. But that's it. It's not very convincing, especially for a modern reader.

In conclusion, reader, you can start a new religion or significantly modify an existing one. You just need a convincing theology. No evidence or proof is really needed. People will create the evidence and proof to justify their beliefs.

Chapter three coming next!

Exploring the Lotus Sutra: The Introduction (Chapter 1)

Background

I came across Donald S. Lopez Jr. here (I listened on my podcast app). Then I became interested in The Lotus Sutra after I heard this episode (which I also listened to on my podcast app).

Those two podcast episodes led me to start reading The Lotus Sutra. I was especially interested in reading the parable of the burning house. When I looked it up, I saw it was chapter three, so I decided to read chapters one and two first. Since then, I've become more interested as a read more about the work. 

My resources here.

Introduction

I'm going to at least read Chapters 4, 15, and 16. But I'll likely at least listen to the entire text. I already read the first two chapters. I'm going to write reading responses for each chapter I read. The info will reflect the questions I had and ideas I looked up while I read. I will also share whatever ideas I'm motivated enough to write about.

I have some Buddhism background, and my information I looked up reflects that. A reader new to Buddhism will likely need to look up more terms and ideas.

The Lotus Sutra Profile

Consensus- like most ancient texts, there are no consensus as to when it was written, who wrote it, or the exact process of the ideas and composition. The ranges below are cover scholarly consensuses of dates.

Ideas- the ideas, stories, and sutras likely go back to the 1st century BCE to 1st century CE which aligns with the emergence of Mahāyāna buddhism. It likely had oral or textual origins in local Indian languages, like Prakrit, before being being composed in Sanskrit.

Textual Origins- it was like first written in Sankrit between 100-250 BCE. Like many other religious texts, it shows signs of being compiled over time. The two main main chunks beings chapters 2-9 and chapters 10-21. The oldest versions are Chinese translations: Dharmarakṣa (286 CE) oldest full Chinese translation, 27 chapters and Kumārajīva (406 CE) which is most influential, 28 chapters (basis for East Asian tradition). Chapter 1 was likely a later addition.

Point of View- there is a third person omniscient narrator.

Frame- there is the ultimate cosmic gathering. The narrator describes it in detail. The narrator drops a lot of names in the first chapter. I don't think readers need to know most of them. 

Names and Terms (these descriptions are copy and pasted from Google's AI Overview)

Śākyamuni Buddha- (Sanskrit: Śākya-muni, “Sage of the Śākya [clan]”) is the historical Buddha, the human teacher who lived and taught in northern India in the 5th–4th century BCE. Born as Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli: Siddhattha Gotama). He will be the speaker of the sutra that makes up The Lotus Sutra.

Bodhisattvas- A bodhisattva is a being who has generated the vow to become a Buddha but delays final enlightenment out of compassion, working to liberate all other beings first.

Mañjuśrī (Wisdom)- Mañjuśrī is a prominent bodhisattva in Mahāyāna Buddhism who represents transcendent wisdom. 

Śāriputra- is a Chief disciple known for wisdom (in the early tradition). Will later become central in Chapter 3 (Burning House Parable) and Chapter 5.

Samadhi is a Sanskrit word meaning "concentration" or "union," referring to a state of deep meditative absorption in both Buddhist and Hindu traditions. 

Mahāyāna Buddhists- meaning "Great Vehicle," is one of the two major branches of Buddhism that emphasizes achieving enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, rather than just oneself.

TLDR

The setting is a grand cosmic assembly. Everyone and their mother is there, including and not limited to: sons of gods; dragon kings; human, divine, and mythic creatures; and 80,000 bodhisattvas. It's a really big deal. The Buddha preaches "the Great Vehicle sutra entitle Immeasurable Meanings." This preaching is mentioned, but the Buddha isn't quoted and doesn't speak yet in the text. Next, the Buddha enters, "into the samadhi of the place of immeasurable meanings, his body and mind never moving." Then numerous miraculous signs prove it. Someone asks what's up, so Mañjuśrī (Wisdom) vouches for the occasion. All this sets the stage for chapter two when the Buddha will speak.

Reading Response

Chapter 1 is most likely added late in the creation of The Lotus Sutra. It can be read as more of a prologue. In addition, the composition of The Lotus Sutra likely evolved over years in multiple stages, in multiple languages, and with unknown number of authors, revisers, and editors. The differences in themes, style, narrative structure, and theology prove the progression and evolution over time. The exact details are unknown, but one thing is certain, the ideas do not date back to the historical Buddha. These ideas are close to 300 after the Buddha's death.

I missed the significance of the samadhi when I read it. This place of immeasurable meanings sets off the miracles to come. The framing is wild. You have to respect the length the authors (I'm assuming the text had authors who revised the text over years) of the text go through to prove themselves. The Lotus Sutra is attempting to undermine the historical and traditional teachings of the Buddha. How does one do that? You can start by proving the significance of the occasion.

Christians also do this. How many eyewitnesses saw the resurrected Jesus? Zero to five depending on how generous one wants to be. There is only one person, who has survived history, that reports having saw Jesus after his death. It's Paul. he says:

[Jesus] appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:4–8)

This is only one eyewitness. Paul is claiming others witnessed it. But that is not 500 plus eyewitnesses. That's a report of 500 eyewitnesses.

I'm not saying Paul was lying. I'm saying one can't just believe Paul because it's in the New Testament. And The Lotus Sutra proves my point!

It's so extreme and mythical that I doubt many readers would or will take it seriously. But the authors go through great details to prove their authority. It's worth reading the chapter to read what I mean. As I mentioned above, the narrator is dropping so many names and numbers of people. Thousands of followers, 80,000 bodhisattvas, Kings, and Gods are all present for the cosmic event centered around the Buddha. The miracles further solidify the occasions. Then after Maitreya asks a questions. Manjushri explains the significance. The Buddha is going to give the great Law.

It all comes together.

But, did it happen?

According to The Lotus Sutra, it did. I know Christians have more reliable and historical information. And I'm focusing on a shallow argument. My main point is addressing the idea: why would Christians make this up? One can't just make up eyewitness accounts for people who could refute the claim. So there is logic to believe Paul is stating a fact. Still, there is only one eyewitness and reports of other eyewitnesses.

The Lotus Sutra is written 100s of years after the Buddha allegedly died and gave his teachings. Mahāyāna Buddhists want to expand the Buddha's teachings. They think it isn't enough to save yourself, you need to save everyone else too. But that's not what the Buddha taught. How can one rectify this problem? One can create a cosmic assembly where the Buddha gives the true teachings, and that is the The Lotus Sutra.

I don't mean to say the authors are being deceitful. Maybe one of the monks had this experience mediating about the topic. Maybe the original authors and readers knew the story was using literary and mythic devices. I don't know the authors' intentions or readers' responses, not to mention the evolution of the ideas. There is a book The Lotus Sūtra: A Biography by Lopez Jr. which provides the scholarly responses.

Similarly, other great men, like Cesar or Alexander, were given attributes to signify their greatness. Titles like Son of God were used historically to show that a figure was great.

Back to Christianity, Christians believed Jesus was the messiah. This led them to continue to follow Jesus after his death. This may have led them to see visions of Jesus and add attributes regarding who Jesus is and was. Using literary devices is definitely part of the story, pun intended. 

Back to The Lotus Sutra, its obvious. The Lotus Sutra is myth building. The Lotus Sutra presents a wild cosmology that isn't historical. The introduction isn't trying to prove this cosmic event literally happened. It's trying to prove the scope and significance of the message. 

The introduction of The Lotus Sutra is a great example of how mythology is used literately and not literally. For Christians out there that can't comprehend how or why a New Testament author could present something false, I recommend The Lotus Sutra.

Read my second post here.

Why read the Bible?

A friend asked me why I'm interested in the Bible.

So many reasons. Here are 10 not in any order:

1. The Bible is one of the, if not the most, influential books ever written. And I've never read the entire book Bible. I plan to read it at least two times through. 
2. I argue about religion, mostly Christianity, with a few friends. Those friends maintain a flow of my interest.
3. The Bible is fascinating.
4. The more I learn, the easier the Bible gets to read and understand. The more I understand, the more engaging the Bible is. I'm more knowledgeable than ever before. For most of my adulthood, I didn't have the skills or background to engage in the Bible. I'm able to read the Bible more like I could a contemporary text.
5. I don't get how some people can literally believe the Bible is historically and theologically accurate. I get why most people believe it, but then there are some people where it doesn't make sense. Trying to empathize and understand how people can believe the Bible is interesting to me. It fits into broader questions and answers about why people believe what they believe. I have some conclusions here, but I'll save those for another post.
6. The Commentaries on the Bible are very interesting. I like the commentaries even better than the primary sources. I find it very engaging to read and consume the commentaries. I prefer to pair them together. Sometimes sandwhiching the two. I'm currently listening to a Great Courses lecture series and a podcast series while doing a slow read of the Old Testament. The lectures and podcast complement each other very well.
7. I'm a natural born know it all. I dislike being wrong. Learning more means I'm wrong less, allowing me to signal how smart and well read I am.
8. Learning is fun.
9. The Bible is entertaining.
10. Reading the Bible will increase my writing. I'll have a lot deeper range of metaphors and allusions to utilize for creating meaningful literature. 

If I spent more time, I could find many more reasons. 

Response to Ep 50

Introduction

After editing and producing Ep 50 of Jimbo Radio. I wanted to make a couple responses that I would have like to said during the episode. Listen here. 

Making Shit Up

I should rephrase. The people who created religions and progressed the ideas were not just "making shit up." They were mostly genuine. People follow their intuitions and resources they have available. People for most of human history had excellent reasons to believe, think, and create what they did. We still do. 

But with all the information I have available to me. There are way better explanations than what the greatest thinkers of antiquity came up with.

When I read Genesis (I'm rereading it now), it's stories. Similar to reading Homer. There are combinations of literary, mythical, allegorical, and, in general, creative techniques at hand. The words and ideas were most likely crafted over time. Changing a word here or rephrasing there to make it more poetic, easier to remember, etc. Like with Genesis, There is a Priestly creation account that is allegedly a later addition than the garden narrative. The Priestly account is like a prologue someone added later for a reason. Either way, two separate stories are combined into one work. And it's not hard to imagine why or how scribes could revise here and there to create a more unified piece. There is a lot more to this story too. See a review of Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman for a fuller analysis.

Fine Tuning

It would be a way greater sign of God if we lived in a universe that wasn't suitable for life!

There are good and bad arguments on both sides. This is another example of people can find reasons and logic to support whatever they want to believe (not whatever, but many views can find something to support what they want). Here is a one stop shop for more philosophical engagement on the topic.

Child Birth: Eve vs Evolution

Why do women suffer during childbirth? 

I'm going to give two explanations. One from religion and one from evolution. This question must have bothered people for thousands of years. Having sex is pleasurable under most conditions. And then childbirth for most of human history is an event where women can die and suffer greatly (modern healthcare has changed the game). Stories help people understand why women suffer so much to keep our species propagating.

1) Women suffer during child because God is punishing all women for Eve's disobedience.

To the woman he [God] said, “I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16

2) Because humans have big brains and stand upright, women have a bio-mechanical challenge. How does one get a baby out of the birth canal? One solution is small helpless babies that takes a year to walk. But that isn't enough. Childbirth still creates strong contractions that compress blood vessels and create strong and intense pain signals. Women pay the price for big brains and bipedalism, both great tradeoffs for humans as a species. 

One of these stories is just obviously way better at explain why women suffer during childbirth. 

Pain Is Good

More on pain, pain is a helpful signal. There is a condition called congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP). If you're unfamiliar with the condition, the wiki link has a short video that captures the tragedy of painlessness. Once again, evolution and biology provide excellent explanations and stories. 

Objective Morals (aka Moral Realism)

Background

A friend and I were discussing objective morals. I thought all his claims and ideas were wrong. Of course, I liked my ideas. That lead me to look into the topic more. I looked up the leading logical arguments for moral realism, and I didn't find them very compelling compared to the arguments against moral realism.

Introduction

This is going to be a brainstorming post. I want to explain my ideas, thinking, and ask questions to guide the next phase of my inquiry.

My Biases

I don't believe in any creator, god, or religion. So the arguments built on a creator or attributes of a god are rejected because I reject the existence of those ideas. With that said, moral realism is not contingent on deism.

Evolution is one of the strongest theories in biology, if not all of science.

I believe in objective reality. Physical structures are undeniable. Ideologies and other abstract ideas are very much open for debate.

Epistemology wise, I'm a skeptic who leans heavily on 1) empiricism for knowledge that can be measured and 2) rationalism for knowledge that cannot be measured.

Logic is the best system of thinking.

The scientific method is the best system for understanding observable phenomena.

Questions (and how do we know?)

Are all, most, some, or few behaviors moral truths?

How many people have to agree for something to be a moral truth?

If people cannot agree, how do people decide what the moral truths are?

If there are moral truths, how can people know what they are? 

How do non human animals fit into the discussion?

How do psychopaths and or other sociopaths fit into the discussion?

How does the history of slavery and the abolishment of slavery prove/disprove moral realism?

How do laws prove/disprove moral realism?

If something like, do not murder, is a moral truth, how do we explain why people murder?

Even if everyone agrees murder is morally wrong, how do we know that's an objective truth and not culture?

For deist, what does it mean when a religion's god commands someone to break a moral truth?

If x is claimed to be a moral truth, does one situation where x is moral disprove x as a moral truth? 

My Priors

People do not agree.

The disagreement seems undeniable. I know that disagreement doesn't necessarily rule out moral realism, but it makes it obvious to me that people aren't going to agree. If we cannot agree, then how can we know which, if any, moral truths are true?

Let's look at killing.

A jainist might say killing a tree or plant is morally wrong. The US legal system might say killing is allowed in self defense. An army might say killing is allowed to protect and or conquer an area. Most people eat meat, so they think it is moral to kill animals for food. Hunters might hunt for sport. Many vegans stop eating meat because they decide it's morally wrong that animals have to suffer in factory farming conditions. And the list goes on. People have varying morals about killing. Maybe a moral realist would agree that killing isn't one of the moral truths.

It feels like I only need to find one black swan. Maybe this is a logical fallacy. But if a moral realist says x is a moral truth, I should only have to find one situation where x is moral.

What's Next?

Here are my next two stops. I'll add further resources as I find them. 

Moral Anti-Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

“The Legendary Muhammad Ali”

She watched her eldest son, Muhammad Ali, sharpen his knife. The woman knew Ali would avenge his father’s murder. Ali and his brother received news of their rival’s location. Ali sheathed his knife in the sash of his robe.

As her sons were leaving their home, the woman said, “Keep an eye out and a knife sharp.”

“Of course, yamma,” Ali said.

The woman tore papyrus leaves, like limbs from a body, from the old books next to her oven.

The day before, Ali had found the books in a six-foot jar while digging for fertilizer. Ali hesitated to break the jar because he feared an evil spirit might be inside. When he considered there could be gold inside, he smashed the jar to pieces with his mallet. Instead, the jar contained 13 papyrus-bound books. He took them home and placed them next to his mother’s oven.

The woman continued to tear, crinkle, and burn the leaves as kindling. The leaves smoldered. The edges curled inward as they turned from brown to gray to white. She added more leaves until a flame ignited. The words, written in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language using the Greek alphabet, became smoke, disappearing for the final time. Neither the woman nor her sons knew the monetary, historical, or spiritual value of the words being burned.

The sons returned. Their robes and beards were stained. Ali was excited to tell his mother the good news. “Yamma,” Ali said, “I chopped his limbs off and dug out his heart. We all ate it.”

She was proud of her sons. She said, “My sons, have some bread while it is fresh. I will heat water for you to wash.”

The woman tore more leaves to start another fire.

Ali said, “We have to get rid of these old books. The authorities will search the house.”

The next day, the books were taken to a local Coptic priest. Ali was arrested. The priest's brother, a schoolteacher, saw one of the books and recognized its value. The teacher took the book to Cairo and showed it to a physician interested in Coptic. The doctor alerted the Department of Antiquities (DoA). The DoA seized the book from the teacher.

The rest of the books were taken to Cairo and sold to antiquity dealers. The sales and rumors of the books increased investigations from authorities. The DoA bought one of the books and confiscated another ten. The DoA gave the books they obtained to the Coptic Museum in Cairo. The thirteenth book escaped Egypt through a Belgian antiques dealer. The Belgian tried to sell the remaining book in New York, eventually selling the remaining book to the Jung Institute of Zurich. Today, all the surviving books and fragments are at the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

What were these ancient Coptic books discovered by the heart-eating murdering Muhammad Ali? They were mostly Gnostic texts with a few other philosophical works, including an excerpt from Plato’s Republic. The majority of the texts had been lost for close to 1,500 years. Today, anyone can read all of these texts online for the price of their internet connection.

5k Warmup

I've been very focuses on my running the last several weeks. For the first time in over 15 years that I have created and followed a training plan. I have not missed a workout or run in the last six weeks. Now, that I finished my last quality workout yesterday, I have transitioned to my tapering. And I'm focusing on other aspects of the race. I made this warmup routine specific to me.  My usual warmup for workouts includes more lunges and a few other mobility/yoga poses. But I cut everything that isn't directly preparing me for running a 5k. Here is my sheet if anyone wants to copy and paste it. 

 

Notes from Episode 41: Knowing about Knowing

In my recent episode, Ep 41 Knowing about Knowing, with Brendan Howard, we continued our discussion about knowing. Our conversation was based on a survey about epistemology I created with the assistance of GPT. We also listened and discussed an episode of Theories of Everything with Professor Jennifer Nagel.

Human Memory

In the episode, I slightly misremembered a study on memory related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Below are the main ideas related to my episode reference brought to you by GPT:

1. Memory decay slows after one year: Flashbulb memories (the personal context: where you were, who told you, etc.) and event memories (facts about the attack itself) both show a forgetting curve that flattens significantly after the first year.

2. Emotional details fade more than factual ones: Emotional responses associated with flashbulb memories (e.g., how shocked or upset you felt) are remembered less accurately over time than non-emotional details like location or the person who told you.

3. Subjective confidence remains high despite inaccuracies: By multiple follow‑up points (1 week, 11 months, 35 months), many participants recalled different details from their original reports—and yet they continued to express high confidence in their recollections. 

After the initial decay, both flashbulb and event memories tend to become more stable—though not necessarily more accurate—over time.

Cumulative Selection

Cumulative selection can explain how a small advantage can build over time through natural selection. Ronald Fisher, a relatively unknown genius and polymath, developed mathematics that explain how small mutations that increase fitness, even with a very small advantage, can survive over time.

Using population genetics, a gene with a 0.1% selective advantage can dominate a population of 10,000 within 20,000 generation. That would be about 500,000 years for humans. 

In the podcast episode, I generally explained why babies should look like their fathers. In theory, if babies, who looked like their fathers, had even a very small advantage, like 0.1%, that advantage would dominate human populations after 20,000 generation, or 500,000 years. If the advantage was larger, it would dominate faster. 

Links 

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mrMGHtNcRD3LMFhVeiMdlrqoEv-XXe-2XHwu4VIVVwA/edit?usp=sharing

• https://open.substack.com/pub/curtjaimungal/p/why-universal-skepticism-is-philosophys?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2925254/

Top 500 Companies with Time

Background

I referenced the top corporations longevity, or lack there of, in a recent podcast episode, click for the episode link.

I wanted to express how the top companies change and die off over time. Here are some links, quotes, and visuals. Here is my GPT searching for the topic.

Introduction

The Fortune 500, not the S&P 500, is a list of the top 500 US companies by revenue. The magazine Fortune has been publishing a list since 1955. 

As of 2024's list, 49 companies have been on the list every year since 1995.

The S&P 500 is an index fund of top US companies. The S&P 500 was created in 1957. Today, 53 of those original companies are still in the S&P 500.

Main Idea

Companies come and go. Less than 10% of the top 500 companies in 1955 were top 500 companies in 2024. A little over 10% of S&P 500 companies in 1957 are still top 500 companies.

There are lots of factors and disruptions, but over time, it is hard for companies, even if they buy out smaller companies and merge with other large companies to stay on top.  

The image below shows the changes in S&P 500 companies over time. At times companies stay for a long time, and then at other times they quickly disappear. If we averaged and leveled off the trend, we'd see a steady and slight decrease with time.  

For More

https://www.axios.com/2019/07/22/fortune-500-corporations-extinction

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-the-top-sp-500-companies-have-changed-over-time/ 

Rereading Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison

Rereading Favorite Books

I've been slowly rereading my favorite books. My friend AJ has joined me for most of them.

Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison is one of favorite rereads so far. Here is a lightly revised review from when I first read the book in 2020.

This book had me hooked. I read Beloved and liked it, but it was a tough read. This book is easier to read and follow, but one can also dive deeper and be jealous and amazed at how skilled Toni Morrison was. I'm going to binge her work for a while (and I did).

The dialogue is excellent. I don't always pay close attention to dialogue. It's easy to notice when it's bad. But I can't recall a book or movie with better dialogue. The characters' voices are unique and funny, and their conversations are fresh.

The plot and drama builds and reveals. I was content the whole read. And then every other chapter or so there were surprises I never expected. Everything connects and comes back. The craft is perfect.

Rereading Song of Solomon 

As much as I liked it last time, it was even better this time. Knowing the story and characters had me especially attentive to all the details Morrison puts into her craft, seeing more clearly how characters are formed and evolved throughout the story.

The plot is full of action and suspense.

It's a male centered point of view, but the female characters stand tall. The main character Milkman is finding his way through two opposing extremes of his day. Milkman is born into a rich northern black family. He journeys to the rural south for something and if you want to find out if he finds it, you'll have to read the novel.

Here is a taste of the dialogue:

“Like a riverboat pilot?” Macon asks.
“No not like no riverboat pilot. Like a Christ-killer Pilate. You can’t get much worse than that for a name. And a baby girl at that.”
“That’s where my finger went down at.”
“Well your brain ain’t got to follow it. You don’t want to give this motherless child the name of the man that killed Jesus, do you?”
“I asked Jesus to save me my wife.”
“Careful, Macon.”
“I asked him all night long.”
“He give you your baby.”
“Yes. He did. Baby name Pilate.”
“Jesus, have mercy.”
“Where you going with that piece of paper?”
“It’s going back where it came from. Right in the Devil’s flames.”
“Give it here. It comes from the Bible. It stays in the Bible.”
And it did stay there, until the baby girl turned twelve years old and took it out, folded it up into a tiny knot and put in a little brass box, and strung the entire contraption through her left earlobe (19).

Here are a couple other quotes that stood out to AJ and I:

A glimpse at the theme of love:

“Gimme hate, Lord,” he whimpered. “I’ll take hate any day. But don’t give me love. I can’t take no more love, Lord. I can’t carry it...It’s too heavy. Jesus, you know, you know all about it. Ain’t it heavy? Jesus? Ain’t love heavy?" 

Milkman's feelings toward Hagar:

She was the third beer. Not the first one, which the throat receives with almost tearful gratitude; nor the second, that confirms and extends the pleasure of the first. But the third, the one you drink because it's there, because it can't hurt, and because what difference does it make?

Guitar trying to comfort Hagar:

“You can't own a human being. You can't lose what you don't own. Suppose you did own him. Could you really love somebody who was absolutely nobody without you? You really want somebody like that? Somebody who falls apart when you walk out the door? You don't, do you? And neither does he. You're turning over your whole life to him. Your whole life, girl. And if it means so little to you that you can just give it away, hand it to him, then why should it mean any more to him? He can't value you more than you value yourself.” 

The opening of the book:

The North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance agent promised to fly from Mercy to the other side of Lake Superior at three o'clock. Two days before the event was to take place he tacked a note on the door of his little yellow house:

At 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday the 18th of February, 1931, I will take off from Mercy and fly away on my own wings. Please forgive me. I loved you all.
 

(signed) Robert Smith,
Ins. agent

 

More on flying:

“How come it [peacocks] can't fly no better than a chicken?"
"Too much tail. All that jewelry weighs it down. Like vanity. Wanna fly, you got to give up the shit that weighs you down.” 

 

The last sentence of the book:

If you surrendered to the air, you could ride it.

 
I could keep going. The book is full of great writing. 

Teaching Tools

If I ever find myself teaching again and I'm lucky enough to teach this book, I want to save these resources. I briefly skimmed them and might read some later. 

https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ebos-landing/

https://commons.hostos.cuny.edu/columbiacommoncoreathostos/song-of-solomon/

https://scalar.lehigh.edu/toni-morrison/song-of-solomon-1977-overview-and-links

https://corebooks.commons.gc.cuny.edu/song-solomon-2/

Knowledge (Epistemology Step 1)

These are visuals for my podcast episode Knowledge and Self Deception.

According to traditional philosophy definitions, knowledge is based on three criteria: belief, truth, and justification. 

I found the following visuals to be helpful in understanding the concept of knowledge better. I put the visuals in order by simplicity.

 

The Gospels, Fuck Yeah!

Background

A few of my closest friends are Christians who I argue with about religion, mostly their religion. Because of them, I'm often reading, listening, and thinking about religions, especially Christianity. More recently it started with Wes Huff on Rogan's podcast. That sparked an ongoing discussion about Christianity. One that has included Alex O'Connor.

Huff and O'Connor led me to Elaine Pagels. Her book, Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus, was a great introduction into the varying sources of information about Jesus and the early Christians. Overall, I think Bart Ehrman has better historical scholarship.

Pagels became famous for her book The Gnostic Gospels (1979). This book was heavily awarded and recognized. The following is from the book's description:

In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, thirteen papyrus volumes that expounded a radically different view of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ from that of the New Testament. In this spellbinding book, renowned religious scholar Elaine Pagels elucidates the mysteries and meanings of these sacred texts both in the world of the first Christians and in the context of Christianity today.

Introduction

Everything I present is ignoring divine intervention. With divine intervention anything is possible. Logic doesn't matter with divine intervention. If one can believe in divine intervention they can easily any issues I would have.

Without divine intervention, how can and does anyone know if the Gospels and early Christian texts are accurate?

Here is a very good argument:

Premise 1: The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses.

Premise 2: Eyewitnesses are generally reliable sources of historical information, especially when accounts are consistent and corroborated.

Premise 3: The New Testament writings have been reliably preserved through manuscript transmission.

Premise 4: The New Testament accounts are internally consistent and externally corroborated (by archaeology, early Church Fathers, etc.).

Conclusion: Therefore, the New Testament is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source for the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I would generally agree that the NT is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source. 

What about the Gnostic texts and gospels? 

Back to Pagels

Pagels is not an atheist. I do not think she would consider herself a Christian either (maybe she would?). Either way, she outlines the progression of ideas about Jesus from the canonical and non-canonical texts. When analyzing from this progression, it becomes clear that the early Christians were a diverse group of followers. Followers with many opposing and varying views on who Jesus was and what Jesus said.

When viewing the early Christian texts in chronological order, it is clearer to see how and why details about Jesus could have been added without being literally true. The early Christian writers had agendas. They wanted to legitimize their messiah. They added details to solve some of the biggest concerns about who Jesus was. They used the Old Testament and prophecies to fill gaps. They elevated Jesus’ status to Son of Man, like other great men of his time, and eventually that grew into Jesus being God. When tracking the progression in order, it’s clear.

Pagels outlines the progression magnificently in her book. She offers multiple explanations and builds context for readers to understand better how the early Christians, authors, and audience may have thought and understood the ideas and events in the texts.

Due to recency bias, a lot of my ideas will be heavily influenced by Pagels.

Some Problem with Jesus

A gigantic problem with Jesus was that he died! How could he be the Messiah if he was dead?

Jesus was born illegitimately.

Jesus was from Nazareth. 

Jesus was killed by the Romans.

Jesus gave secret teachings to his closest followers.

The list goes on...

Fixing the Problems

The NT solves these problems. 

Yes, Jesus died, but he was resurrected. He wasn’t just the Messiah; He is God. He knew He was going to die, and He died for humanity's salvation.

Yes, Jesus was an illegitimate child because he was born of immaculate conception.

Yes, Jesus was from Nazareth, but he was born in Bethlehem. He either had to move because people wanted to kill him or his parents had to go to Bethlehem for a census.

Yes, Romans crucified Jesus, but that is because the Jewish authorities made poor Pilate do something against his will.

Yes, Jesus says in Mark 4:11, "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables." 

The most likely earliest Gnostic text is The Gospel of Thomas. In it, the author claims to be sharing the secret teaching of Jesus. 

Some of the Secret Teachings from Thomas

(1) And he said: “Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.”

(3) Jesus said, "[If] those who lead you [say to you, 'See], the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky [will precede you. If they say that] it is under the earth, then the fish of the sea [will enter it, preceding] you. And, the [kingdom of God] is inside of you, [and it is outside of you. Whoever] knows [himself] will discover this. [And when you] come to know yourselves, [you will realize that] you are [sons] of the [living] father. [But if you] will [not] know yourselves, [you dwell] in [poverty] and it is you who are that poverty."

(13) I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.

(70) When you bring forth that which is within yourselves, this that you have shall save you. If you do not have that within yourselves, this which you do not have within you will kill you.

(77) It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.

According to Thomas, Jesus has a different theology about salvation. One that doesn't rely on churches, bishops, or priests. One based on knowledge and not belief.

John solves this problem by turning Thomas into Doubting Thomas. John discredits the Gospel of Thomas and the followers of Thomas by turning Thomas into the dummy that doesn't believe anything. Mark, Matthew, nor Luke mention anything about Thomas’ character. This isn't proof of anything, but it begs the question. Did John add Thomas' doubts to delegitimatize Thomas and his gospel.

The Rise of Christian Orthodoxy

Bishop Irenaeus, an extremely influential early Christian, wrote Against Heresies. He was against the Gnostic teachings and ideas. He is the first known Christian to make a case for the four canonical Gospels today: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. At Irenaeus’ time, Christians followed varying numbers of Gospels. Groups might have followed just one gospel or mixed and matched. Irenaeus loved the Gospel of John and thought John was the most important Gospel. With time, orthodoxy was shaped by the varying groups and ideas in the early church.

By the 4th century, the NT became a set canon that has mostly been unaltered. The canonization created several obstacles for the non-canonical texts, including censorship and destruction. Few would survive.

Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria stands out for his condemnation of the heretical texts. In his Easter letter, he listed the 27 books of the New Testament for the first time in the exact form we have today. In the letter he also condemned the heretical texts. There isn't evidence for this, but his influence is likely a contributing factor in the destruction of the heretical books, Gnostic texts and non-canonical texts. To keep it very simple, this was the rise of Christian Orthodoxy and the New Testament (NT) as we know it.

Along with the destruction of the heretical texts, was the destruction of alternative interpretations. Gnosticism became heretical. The church started an ideological cleansing. With the imperial support of Emperor Constantine, the bishops and churches had the power to enforce orthodoxy.

There is a huge problem here. The church and bishops denied access to information. Information that many early Christians were persecuted and died for. People for over 1,500 years were ignorant of the non-canonical texts. They accepted the claims of early Christian scholars, like Irenaeus, who said the non-canonical texts were dangerous and heresies. But for over 1500 years people couldn’t decide for themselves.

Luckily, some Christian monks hid some of these texts (divine intervention??). Are they the dangerous heretical texts Irenaeus and Athanasius feared?

Non-Canonical Texts

People can read some of the destroyed heretical texts. The texts can be scrutinized and analyzed by the same logic that is used on the NT. People can choose for themselves how likely, heretical, or dangerous the texts are.

Most of the non-canonical texts seem to be 2nd to 3rd century. It's difficult to say because the books were banned and destroyed. For some of the texts only fragments have been discovered, for most only references from ancient Christian writings. Still, although debated, scholars seem to mostly agree that most of the known non-canonical texts are most likely from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

This would make them further removed from eyewitnesses and associates, and thus would make them less reliable. But still, following the formal logic above for the canonical gospels, they could still be a useful sources of information. They can add corroborations to both non-canonical texts and the NT.

Is is possible that Jesus gave secret teachings? Is it possible that one or some of these Gnostic texts have preserved any of Jesus' secret teachings?

It is possible. The followers of Thomas certainly thought so. It unclear exactly what early Christians thought. They were obviously a diverse group of people with diverse and wide ranges of ideas. But it is not clear how prevalent the ideas were.

If the early Christians were closer to eye witnesses and associates shouldn’t they know better than 4th century bishops? It’s important to consider the early Christian when analyzing the life and teachings of Jesus.

There are over 30 known non-canonical gospels of Jesus. These texts were mentioned by early church fathers, like Irenaeus and Eusebius. Today there are at least fragments of 15 non-canonical gospels of Jesus.

The following is a table of know Gospels, estimated dates, and a very brief note of each book.

Gospel	Estimated Date	Notes
Mark	65–70 AD	Likely the earliest; written shortly before or after the destruction of the Temple (70 AD).
Matthew	70–90 AD	Uses Mark as a source; likely written in a Jewish-Christian context.
Luke	80–95 AD	Also uses Mark; connected to Acts; written for a Gentile-Christian audience.
John	90–110 AD	Theologically mature; likely composed in stages; reflects a developed Christology.
Gospel of Thomas	Early form: 50–70 AD	A sayings gospel. Some sayings may be early, but the final collection reflects Gnostic tendencies.
	Final form: 100–140 AD
Gospel of Peter	100–150 AD	Fragmentary; contains a dramatic passion/resurrection narrative; likely anti-Jewish and docetic.
Infancy Gospel of Thomas	120–140 AD	Not the same as the Gospel of Thomas; legendary stories of Jesus’ childhood.
Protoevangelium of James	130–150 AD	Focuses on Mary’s early life and virginity; not about Jesus’ teachings.
Gospel of the Hebrews	Early 2nd century	Quoted by early Fathers like Jerome; only fragments survive.
Gospel of the Egyptians	120–150 AD	Gnostic; quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Fragmentary.
Gospel of Mary (Magdalene)	120–180 AD	Survives only in fragment; portrays Mary as a key disciple with secret knowledge.
Gospel of Judas	**Written: 130–180 AD	Gnostic; reinterprets Judas as the one who truly understood Jesus.
	Manuscript: c. 250–280 AD**
Gospel of Philip	180–250 AD	Found at Nag Hammadi; emphasizes mystical union and sacraments.
Egerton Gospel	50–130 AD	Fragment with some early Jesus sayings and events; possibly independent tradition.
Secret Gospel of Mark	Claimed 1st century; likely a modern forgery or 2nd-century	Referenced only in a 20th-century letter (Morton Smith); authenticity debated.

Almost Final Thoughts

The 30 plus gospels cannot all be true because they have direct contradictions. This proves that people could write inaccurate gospels and texts about Jesus. God and or the universe allowed it. So people have to decide which gospels, which ideas, etc are more or less likely and or true.

A friend of mine thinks God put everything in the Bible exactly how it should be. This is the divine intervention that cannot really be debated.

Would that make the Monks saving the Gnostic texts also divine intervention? Man tried to destroy it, but God wouldn’t allow it. We can imagine a future with more texts and fragments discovered, would that be divine intervention too?

Is God or men saving and destroying these texts and ideas?

Why should and shouldn't we accept the 4th century conclusions?

Using the formal logical above, we could broaden the scope of the NT. The non-canonical texts could have been written by or preserved from eyewitnesses or close associates of Jesus. Most of the ideas are consistent with and could corroborate other canonical and non-canonical texts.

Conclusion

Monks in Egypt saved these books for a reason. They thought they were too important to destroy. If humanity is lucky, the remaining fragments and texts will be discovered too. Then scholars and people in general can have a fuller picture of Jesus and the early Christians.

In the end, men wrote these texts. Men vetted the texts. Men successfully and unsuccessfully tried to destroy the texts. Men decided on the heretical and canonical texts. It's all men. 

With divine intervention, one just opens a new can of worms. How does one separate divine intervention from what humans do? It's not possible.

If one wants to use divine intervention for peace of mind, I'm all for that. But is that any different than saying I like this better because I like this better? It's just following a gut feeling, and that is fine too. I think we all do that naturally anyway. We pick what we like without using logical or reason, then we use logic and reason to justify out choice.

The difference is, people don't admit they just like it better. I don't either. I honestly think I scrutinize the information and make logical conclusions. The ideas presented here are the result of countless books, lectures, articles, hours of thinking, and discussions with friends. I do not take these topics lightly. I'm always learning and improving my understanding, especially of Jesus.

But there is no reason I have found to accept divine intervention. It doesn't solve any problems for me. It only raises more unanswerable problems. Collective knowledge, systems of logic, and the scientific method have allowed humans do answer so many questions about the world. Questions that used to be explained by Gods. The more humans learn, the less God is needed to explain.

The Book of Enoch Chapter 71

Introduction

Chapter 71 of The Book of Enoch is controversial. There may or may not be a claim that Enoch was supposed to be the "Son of Man." And that claim may or may not have been added later on by some transcriber.

Background

I recorded an interview with Greg Dizzia, here is the link. He wrote The Book of Enoch: An Antediluvian Account. I asked him a question about the narrator Enoch referring to himself as the "Son of Man" in his narrative. This baffled Greg, and I didn't have the text available. We skipped the question and moved on. Now, I'm looking back over the text.

The Book of Enoch is closely tied to The Book of Genesis. It tells a story of Fallen Angels and the years leading up to the flood story of Noah. The Book of Enoch has been mostly forgotten. It was likely written in Aramaic and or Hebrew. The the most complete surviving copies are in the Geʽez language. The Books were most likely written in the Second Temple Period although the story is possibly a lot older. Listen to the interview with Greg to hear his take

The Controversy

No surprise to me, there is a controversy and conspiracy that involves a section of the text that relates to Jesus.

The Book of Enoch is written in first person. The narrator claims to be Enoch. In Chapter 71, and only in Chapter 71, Enoch (narrator) states that the Head of Days (God) calls Enoch the "Son of Man." The "Son of Man" is mentioned many other times and not identified directly as Enoch.

But! Some translation do not translate this passage, line 14 specifically, the same.

Others claim Chapter 71 verse 14 is an interpolation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls fragments do not include chapters 37-71 of Enoch. So the interpolation of 71:14 will remain a debate among scholars.

Translations

Here is a link to the original Geez. It appears to me that there might be multiple Ge'ez versions of Enoch too. This would make sense if it was translated from another language. The below translation on the right is from Google Translate.

Here is parallel translation of three English texts.

I'm sure there are several other translation we could cross reference too. For my purposes this is enough.

Conclusion

It's odd that the "Son of Man" is referenced so many times in Enoch, but, then, only directly linked to Enoch once. This makes an interpolation seem probable. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence or surviving sources to give a great answer. For most people, I think theology will influence their conclusions.

If the 71:14 belongs, it sounds like Enoch is who God is calling the "Son of Man." Even in the far right translation in the parallel image, it is unclear who the son of man is. A Christian would assume it's Jesus for obvious reasons, but anyone else could very easily assume it was God announcing Enoch to the thousands of angels.

I doubt scholars/people will come to any consensus on this topic without additional archeology findings.