Until Lions Become Lambs

Rise and Rise Again
Until Lions become Lambs

This makes more sense and has a stronger meaning to me than the original.

The original is told as

Rise and Rise Again
Until Lambs become Lions

Since lambs never become lions, one either struggles in vain or puts faith in miracle. In any case, the original aphorism is composed as if the aim is to fundamentally alter one’s nature–a happy wish if you are a lamb at the mercy of stronger forces.

The rewritten form captures a much more salient truth. The only way a lion could ever become lamb is by lameness of spirit. This is to say lions will never become lambs, either. Therefore, look to your nature–understand what you are–and let your indomitable spirit echo into eternity.

Emmm … the original meant, “until passive lambs become ferocious lions, they will be continually abused”.

You are now suggesting, “until ferocious lions become passive lambs, … what”? The abuse will never grow?

It may not be as readily understood the second way, but I think it makes sense and is an even more powerful idea once it’s comprehended.

Rise and rise again, not to change what you are, for you are already a lion by nature and THIS is why you rise. To give up or to give in to a lesser life is to lose your spirit.

I am not sure if that has anything with your general idea but it sounds to me more or less like the verse in Matthew 5:3

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

In other words if one believes [s]he is a saint there is good chance [s]he is a sinner.
To rise you must kneel (got lame; to learn how to curb your own power) or something. Or I am wrong in my interpretation of your suggestion to shift the original words of Maitreya?

Hi flowered,

That is quite different to what I had in mind. In the world I know, I cannot understand poorness of spirit to mean anything admirable. And I don’t believe there are chosen people, except those who are willing and able to control their destinies–who, in effect, choose themselves. You are meant neither to become anything essentially other than what you are, nor to believe so. Simply this: as long you have the spirit to do better, rise. Of someone who doesn’t have the spirit, you can’t ask anything.

Rise and Rise Again, Until Lions become Lambs.
Rise and Rise Again, Until You Haven’t the Spirit.

Hi Fuse,
Nice to meet you.

First of all I would be quick to admit that I do not feel myself competent enough to discuss in adequate deepness Nietzsche’s ideas of masters’ – slaves’ morality, Buddhist eschatology nor the Christianity theological concept of Agnus Dei(Lamb of God).

My kind of laic knowledge about all those comes from random books and internet articles reading which could tempt anyone nowadays to anonymously pretend of smartass being. Besides, my English, I am afraid, is not quite good to understand you and then to make my points clear enough.

Whatever. (Enough excuses be those lameness/ lambness or might be even sheepness of a kind)
…

In accordance with
John 1:29
We have John the Baptist who:
“On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!”

I would risk to generalize but roughly speaking - it may be well speculated that:
part of the attractiveness of the Christianity and might be other religious beliefs comes from the concept of intentional humbleness. The heroism of sacrifice. And it is not so much about physical sacrifice. It is not about the appearance of a human being bowing low in front of anyone else. It is much more about voluntary self-restraint of One’s own power.

I had a teacher who was saying: “Nothing that had not been first learnt could have been forgotten. So onward to forgetting! (But first go ahead learning so that you could later on have something to forget!”

I am not sure if this is the correct analogy or even if this above makes some sense to you
but IMO something similar must have been the relations between the Power we possess and the meekness in its use.
Should you allow me some literature derail as from Carlos Castaneda:
“Power is the strongest of all enemies. And naturally the easiest thing to do is to give in; after all, the man is truly invincible. He commands; he begins by taking calculated risks, and ends in making rules, because he is a master.
A man at this stage hardly notices his third enemy closing in on him. And suddenly, without knowing, he will certainly have lost the battle. His enemy will have turned him into a cruel, capricious man, but he will never lose his clarity or his power.
A man who is defeated by power dies without really knowing how to handle it. Power is only a burden upon his fate. Such a man has no command over himself, and cannot tell when or how to use his power.”

+++
It may be argued that in its extremity (for the fun of it. – extremist’s meekness would be a paradox or might be oxymoron of a kind) the Christians ideology went much further with the [in]famous preaching: If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.(Mathew 5:39) and “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”(Mathew 5:44)
As someone (internet menially tells me it’s Lao Tzu) have said “The soft and the pliable will defeat the hard and strong.”

As it happens no thinkable thing would ever remain unchallenged so roughly speaking not long ago Nietzsche et all started their holly quest and crusade against Christianity.
Might not be the best quote on topic by Nietzsche but there you are as a one example of his ideas that Christian and Judaic priests in particular did corrupt the human’s mind and souls together with the free will [to power] originally attached to them
(In THE ANTICHRIST)

” Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most lamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his intellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually destroyed by Christianity!”

+++

Then again
You have started your thread with a suggestion to subvert some quote of which i-net tells me to have originated from:
Maitreya The Friend of All Souls
The Holy Book of Destiny
"And when they seek
to oppress you
And when they try
to destroy you,
Rise and Rise again
and again
Like The Phoenix
from the ashes
Until the Lambs
have become Lions
and the Rule of Darkness
is no more "

Internet further explains that:

• Maitreya is an incarnation of Buddha (or to be correct He is believed to be a future successor of the historic Śākyamuni Buddha). However the book in question Holy Book of Destiny
  seems to has its first edition not long ago – namely in 2011. More curious details on the author can be found in Amazon: The Friend of All Souls

• The phrase was used in a recent Hollywood production retelling the story of Robin Hood (2010). In the movie, Robin of the Hood (Russel Crow), learned this quote as a boy and remembered as a man. According to Russel Crow the quote “Rise And Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions” means “never give up”. (For the records I haven’t watched the movie.)

Hence it may be accepted that movie Robin Hood is Nietzsche’s fan or predecessor of a kind who is hinting about the white lions to come [to conquer and] inherit the word. Which IMO directly oppose the standard Jesus legacy that “Blessed are the meek [lambs], for they will inherit the earth. (Mathew 5:5)

The truth here in that issue (as I can see it) is much more a matter of play upon words and not so a question of philosophy. Although One might well argue if the symbolic pair of wings of wise Owl [of Athena] is not actually constructed of clever wording for the most part of it.
You were so kind to clarify for me that that in your understanding “poorness of spirit” cannot mean anything admirable.
Which as I can understand it (but I could be wrong again) is another nail in the wooden Christian’s coffin (or it was a crucifix) i.e. the dogma of meekness as a genuine virtue that defines us as standalone and tough humans who would eventually overcome aggression by means of mercy or the likes.
It is yet not clear to me what your attitude towards (if I may christen it that way) “Nietzsche PoV” is.

You are saying that:

1. “…lambs never become lions…”
2. “…lions will never become lambs, either…”

…”Therefore” - => “…let your indomitable spirit echo into eternity.” = “…as long you have the spirit to do better, rise…”

So I would presume that you are of opinion that it is basically impossible for the [grown] man to out-jump his own spirit and moral.

It may be the language barrier, it may be my own limits of comprehension, it may be just my lack of concentration and I am sorry if that long post annoys you. But that was how I get your interpretation on the topic of [fundamentally impossible according to you] spiritual growth. In other words it seems to me that you give no credit for a man in an attempt to change its mentality to better [or worse].

flowered,

It is nice to converse with you as well.

I can only make a stab at one of the three, but we shall make do. Perhaps what you know will supplement what I know.

I like your spirit.

I have a sense of what you mean about Christianity and power. Christians habitually approach anything that has great power or ability–anyone intimidating–as a threat which must be met with the prescribed inoculation. It is almost judged to be a form of sin: great capacities should be tamed or “curbed,” lest the person becomes too proud or judges himself better than his brothers and sisters. It is God alone who has true power and who has perfect execution and judgement of ability.

That is, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I think this is a fundamental overcompensation in Christian moral philosophy. I do believe it is important to control power, but the ability to control one’s self actually enhances one’s power. Active control is a forum of power, whereas learned tameness is simply a handicap, a regression. To righteously limit and attack power as fundamentally harmful is dumb.

I’m not sure what soft refers to, but it is clear that pliability can be a strength. The question is: what is the scope of power? Some do not think power can describe much else than brute force. I think this is a mistake.

As to Nietzsche, I have read almost all of his major works. I try not to rely on The Antichrist to interpret Nietzsche because scholars consider it likely that Elizabeth Nietzsche, the sister, took advantage of her brother’s unfinished writings as his health deteriorated, and after his death, by finishing them herself and/or making significant edits so that they could be published as a complete and final work. People speculate that she was motivated to enhancing her own fame and influence. In brief, I think it is important to read The Antichrist, but I do not consider it reliable. I think Nietzsche’s other works are the better sources to glean his views.

Transposing he two words “lamb” and “lion” may be a kind of word play, but it leads necessarily to an entirely different saying of new meaning. It is a significant change which has philosophical implications; hence, I posted the topic in the Philosophy forum.

Full disclosure: I was inspired to reinterpret the saying after watching Robin Hood (2010).

Let me be clear in response to your characterization of my certainty: I do not understand what is admirable about a “poor spirit,” but I don’t doubt that it is possible to admire such a thing. I simply cannot understand it myself.

I have to think about this. I do believe in self-improvement and mental mobility, or “psychic” mobility. The time for giving credit is not during the middle of a person’s life but when all is said and done and they have gone.

I found your reply very engaging, so please do not think that difficult questions or ambiguities annoy me. They are a welcome challenge.