“Belief in the immortality of the soul raises the question of where the soul of a dead man goes. Does it return to God and reunite with that source of immortality, does it hover near the tomb of its master, or does it come back in a new person? WE favor the last theory, which we call inuwa, incarnation, or coming back to earth in a new human form. When sickness or accident destroys life, the indestructible spirit self stays near the family, visiting them and helping them to obtain for it a new body; that is, a baby in whom it comes back again, bringing its total life experience. When a child is born, its father goes to the priest to determine whose incarnation it is. There must be some dead members of that family whose lives were honorable. To one of these the priest must trace the baby, never to a man or woman who led an ignoble life.
Unlike the Hindu law of Karma, the Igbo theory of incarnation does not limit the reborn soul to its original family and class. The only limitation is sex. For there are numerous examples in modern Ibo (Igbo) villages when a soul has been reincarnated in a new village and family. …
Spirituality
“Buddhism did not exert any direct influence on African (Igbo) religious thought and practices, but there is a notable parallel between the Buddhism of India and the Omenanism of Igbo: both stress the need of thinking, speaking, and doing right things. Rather, Igbo religion affected distant lands in the days of old. Buddhas of India as shown in Siam are Negroid. The statues at Nagpoor near Benares are Negroid. The Japanese earlier gods were represented with woolly, Negroid hair. Thus, in religion, Igbo seems to have influenced the whole Asiatic world.
…
The spirituality of the Igbo is not founded upon man but for man: he does not make attempts to equate God to man. No man, we believe, is so good that he should be deified, considered God, or even worshiped as a special son or prophet of God. Consequently, you cannot find a human in Igbo spirituality who is the prototype of Jesus Christ, Buddha, or Bahai. All these were humans whose character ranked highest in their respective and contemporary communities. Igbo has produced men and women of similar noble lives, but they were never deified, because a real God is invisible and superhuman.
…
Broadly speaking, there are two related concepts of God: Chineke, and Chi.
The first idea is the Supreme Being, God, the Creator, the universal God. He is the same for all persons and races and nations. He has no angels or holy messengers because he needs none. He can do everything. He created the whole cosmos alone and without fatigue. He is not human and does not possess an animal nature that would need food and drink; our sacrifices are symbolic. No one has ever seen him physically and no artist dare portray Him in wood, bronze, or painting. He is a spirit and communicates to man not in body but in spirit.
We believe that man is different from lower animals only in one primary sense: God left in every man a portion of his breath. When this element leaves the edifice called man, the residue is a mere matter. From this belief we derive our idea of personal gods, called Chi in Ibo (Igbo) language. There are as many Chi as there are personalities. No one Chi is like another, because no two persons are identical. A rich man’s Chi is rich and a poor man’s Chi is poor. A man’s Chi is masculine while a woman’s Chi is feminine. A man’s Chi is equal to that man. This personal god does not leave its master until death. It is a personal guard to which God entrusted every human being.”
We have taken the liberty of replacing Africa with Igbo, since Maazi Mbonu was primarily speaking of Igbo Spirituality – OMENANA, and we will also underline Igbo whenever we make these changes.
We will also highlight salient points we hope to bring to the attention of our readers.
The word ‘Religion’ or ‘Religious’ has been replaced by the word SPIRITUAL (and underlined), since this is more in line with the “OMENANA” way of life.
From the book: “My Africa”
By Maazi Mbonu Ojike (1946)
Some of the Igbo sages who played very prominent roles in the writing of the TALMUD:
1.) R. Abba Ben Ibo (known as Arikha)
2.) R. Hiya (Iya, correct Igbo spelling) – Uncle of Abba Ben Ibo
3.) R. Huna (Una, correct Igbo spelling) – disciple of Abba Ben Ibo
4.) Rabba (uprooter of mountains) – name of his father is Nahmani (Nnamani, correct Igbo spelling)
5.) Abbaye or Nahmani Ben Kaylil – nephew of Rabba
6.) Rava or Abba Ben Rav Hamma (Amma, correct Igbo spelling)
“As the importance of the Palestine center diminished, the great amora R. Abba Ben Ibo (known as Abba Arikha – Abba the tall one) was confronted with the task of establishing a spiritual center in Babylonia (it eventually overshadowed the center in Palestine). In his youth R. Abba traveled from Babylonia to Palestine with his uncle and teacher, R. Hiya, a disciple and colleague of R. Judah. R. Abba himself had completed most of his education under Rabbi Judah and was one of the members of the Sanhedrin. He lived in Palestine for many years, though apparently he returned to Babylonia on occasion, and in the end he went back to the country of his birth for personal reasons. There he found a number of eminent scholars but discovered that scholarship was only imperfectly organized and standards were lower than in Palestine. R. Abba was acknowledged to be one of the outstanding Palestine scholars, ordained by R. Judah himself, a compiler of mishnayot and an expert on the traditions of both Palestine and Babylonia. To avoid offending the existing communal leadership of Babylonia, he settled in the small town of Sura, rather than in one of the main centers of scholarship, and established an academy there. Babylonian scholars were soon attracted to the new center and thousands of disciples flocked to study there. R. Abba exerted such a strong influence over the Babylonian community that he began to be referred to simply as Rav, the name he is known by to this day. The authority of the Sura center over most of Jewish Babylonia was recognized, and the Sura academy survived in various forms for 700 years.
Renowned as a pious and noble man, Rav succeeded by his own personal example, aid, and encouragement, in raising Babylonian standards of scholarship. One of his younger contemporaries, the Babylonian sage Samuel, established a second center in the town of Nehardea. Although this academy later moved, it remained the partner and friendly rival of Sura as long as Babylonia flourished as a Torah center.
Rav and Samuel together constituted the first generation of Babylonian amoraim who cast the mold of Torah scholarship in that country for generations to come. They were close personal friends, although completely unalike in character. Rav’s family traced its lineage back to the House of David, and he was connected by marriage with the resh gulut (exilarch, or hereditary leader of the Babylonian Jewry). He was well versed in the Palestinian tradition of study and edited several collections of mishnayot. It was in his academy that the definitive commentary on the Book of Leviticus (known as Sifra Debei Rav) was composed, and several of the main New Year prayers are attributed to him.
Samuel was a totally different personality, not only in outward appearance but also in occupation. Whereas Rav engaged in trade on an international scale, Samuel was one of the outstanding physicians of his day, a great astronomer, and head of the court of the exilarch. …
In the following generations many Babylonian sages made their way to Palestine and became prominent there, but the Babylonian academies were already so large and important that they evolved their own independent methods of study and schools of thought. Rav was succeeded at Sura by his disciple R. Huna, while Samuel’s heir was R. Judah, who had also studied under Rav and who transferred the academy from Nehardea to Pumbedita, where it remained. The scholars of this period include R. Hisda, who lived to a ripe old age; blind R. Sheshet, one of the most erudite men of his age, who had a sharp tongue and very definite views, “a man harder than iron”; and R. nahman, the son-in-law of the exilarch, who was a scintillating judge in the tradition of Samuel.
The third generation of Babylonian amoraim boasted two outstanding personalities: Rabba (short for R. Abba), a brilliant man (“uprooter of mountains,” according to his contemporaries) who became an academy head at a very early age; and R. Yosef, the great expert on the Torah. R. Yosef went blind in his old age but maintained his congeniality and warm relationships with his disciples, eventually replacing his friend Rabba as academy head. The debates between these two men became part of the regular curriculum of the academies. There were scholars who brought summaries of Palestinian scholarship to Babylonia, and this renewed contact inspired two sages who are regarded as the central pillars of Babylonian learning, Abbaye and Rava. Abbaye was the nickname that Rabba gave his nephew, Nahmani Ben Kaylil (the word apparently means “little father,” since he was named after Rabba’s father, Nahmani. An orphan, he was brought up by his uncle and lived like him, in penury, farming for a living and studing by night and during the slack agricultural season. He was a favorite disciple but also a sharp critic of R. Yosef, and he learned from both mentors, becoming academy head after R. Yosef. Rava, whose full name was Abba Ben Rav Hamma, was the follower of another school, that of R. Nahman and R. Hisda. A very rich merchant who was on close terms with the Persian royal house, he lived in the important and prosperous commercial center of Mehoza. Rava was apparently younger than Abbaye, but they were friends from youth despite their conflicting opinions. Hundreds of debates between them are quoted in the Babylonian Talmud, and the discussions which they and their disciples held are classic examples of the methods of the Babylonian Talmud. Both had incisive minds, but Abbaye tended somewhat to formalism, while his colleague generally represented a more realistic outlook. Abbaye was more moderate in his conclusions and preferred simple solutions, while Rava’s decisions were clearer, although his halakhic method was more complex. In numerous areas they were in accord, and many important halakhic elements are the fruit of their joint efforts.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
