Advertisement
Dear Friends,
In another post, Corrie made reference to the reported claim of Jesus that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that none come to the Father but through him. Corrie is right that a claim like that begs one to form an understanding of what he meant. On the one hand, when taken literally, and outside the context of other things he is reported to have said, it seems to be a declaration of absolute spiritual superiority and authority. That interpretation has been used by popular Christianity to fuel attitudes of elitism, intolerance, and hatred.
Consider these excerpts from the Gospel of John.
John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me."
5:31 "If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true."
6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me."
7:16 "My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me. "
10:30 "I and the Father are one."
10:34 "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?"
12:44 "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me."
14:16 "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever."
16:7 "It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."
So who or what was Jesus?
Peace,
Griffin
In another post, Corrie made reference to the reported claim of Jesus that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that none come to the Father but through him. Corrie is right that a claim like that begs one to form an understanding of what he meant. On the one hand, when taken literally, and outside the context of other things he is reported to have said, it seems to be a declaration of absolute spiritual superiority and authority. That interpretation has been used by popular Christianity to fuel attitudes of elitism, intolerance, and hatred.
Consider these excerpts from the Gospel of John.
John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me."
5:31 "If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true."
6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me."
7:16 "My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me. "
10:30 "I and the Father are one."
10:34 "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?"
12:44 "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me."
14:16 "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever."
16:7 "It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."
So who or what was Jesus?
Peace,
Griffin
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, June 19, 2006 - 12:50 PMI think the question "what" is interesting here, because I think it proposes that this person Jesus entered into an experience and embodiment of something that pervades all of reality, which I think is what is meant by "Christ". Jesus the vehicle embodied the Christ-presence and power, as Paul says, "having neither mother nor father, beginning of days, nor end of life, but abiding as a Priest King of Melchizedek..." or words to that effect. So the "what" aspect of your question really gets to the heart of the matter.
Essentially, I think Jesus was enacting something, a mystery drama to demonstrate the potential of every woman/man to embody this light-presence and light-power, which is what I think the Apostles mean when they speak of being "Christed".
Thanks for your post! -
-
Unsu...
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, June 19, 2006 - 4:09 PMSomeone that didnt want to have any writting so we got glipses from the views of other people. His makes everthing much more complex, but intersting too.
-
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Tue, June 20, 2006 - 12:59 AMJesus said that he did not come of his own accord, but he proceeded and came forth from the Father, just as a word comes forth from a person. A word doesn't have a choice as to what it will do, but is obedient to its master at all times. A word doesn't come out of the mouth because it chooses to, but only to deliver the message of the one who is speaking.
God Himself, God the Unknowable, revealed Himself to us through Jesus Christ. We can know God only because of Jesus, just as you can only know me if I choose to share my innermost feelings with you, if I choose to communicate with you.
When the pharisees attempted to defend their status as the sons of God, Jesus knocked them down very easily. He said it was obvious that they were not what they claimed to be, as they were making every attempt to get rid of him, but if they truly loved God, they would also love Jesus, because Jesus is the Word of God. Just as children love to hear their mother sing, the pharisees should've loved to hear Jesus.
What is a word?
What happens when I say the word "cow"? Are you aware of the image it calls up in your mind? It must call it up, as the word is simply a placeholder for the image. It's like a surrogate record in a card catalog. When you want to find a particular book, you go to the catalog and look it up, rather than waste a bunch of time fumbling through the library.
When a person speaks to us, there are many images springing up all over the place. Sophists exploit this mechanism when winning audiences over to their point of view. Salesman use this to sell more products. By calling up the appropriate image, certain states are evoked, and then these states are associated with some other phenomenon (e.g., sexual gratification is linked to a bottle of shampoo). Now when the person encounters that phenomenon in the future, those same states will be invoked, and the result is obvious -- cha-ching!
Have you had bizarre dreams with random imagery? lucid and meaningful dreams?
Have you walked through a shopping mall full of chaotic conversations? been confronted by a sales pitch?
How are these things different?
The message is more cohesive when somebody is speaking to you directly.
However, who is this person you are listening to? Why should you listen to them?
If you don't listen to them in the shopping mall, they either walk away or they attack you.
If you don't listen to them in the dream, you either die or they kill you.
Have you seen the many different logos that we have in our society? Toyota, Ford, Yamaha, Sony, Microsoft, etc. All of these brands have their respective logos, and these logos are designed to evoke particular "feelings" in consumers.
The first thing a graphic designer typically asks a client is "What type of image do you want to project?" That's the bottom line. A good logo will project an image that's meaningful (and hopefully honest) to the company's target market (i.e., consumers who are actually interested in buying their products).
Interpretations...
1. All spiritualy is a farce. Men have made up extremely elaborate lies. It's all marketing. Give up now.
2. The New Testament is the Logo of God. When God spoke, He spoke Jesus Christ. His meaning is Loving Sacrifice. Study, contemplate, celebrate! -
-
Unsu...
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Tue, June 20, 2006 - 8:56 AMHi Denny,
It's been too long! :-) I hope you have been well.
Thanks for a very thoughtful post.
You wrote: "All spiritualy is a farce."
Could you explain more of what you mean by this?
Peace,
Griffin -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Tue, June 20, 2006 - 2:55 PMHowdy Griffin,
I've been swamped with work for a while now. Not letting up either! Thank God for "Getting Things Done" by David Allen. :)
"All spiritualy is a farce" is a typo. It should read "All spirituality is a farce."
Basically, is spirituality something like a multi-level marketing scheme, where participants generate wealth on something that has little to no value, where those at the top derive the greater benefits, or are these MLM schemes simply distorted reflections of God's goodness? If the former is true, what good would it be to find another MLM scheme? It would be better to get a real job! However, if they are distorted reflections, why keep staring into the water? Look up in the sky!
Best,
Denny
-
-
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Fri, June 23, 2006 - 7:35 PMhi, Griffin my dear old friend.... !
(I mean, of course, 'old' in the sense of we've known one another for ages, not casting aspersions on your chronological age....)
who or what was Jesus?
as you know, I've spent years at a time researching this question in Mother India, living on ground where Christ got his enlightenment (it's documented) and learned many of the supernatural abilities (yogas) he then took back to the Middle East and demonstrated to thousands of people.
my conclusion at this point, to keep it simple and not overly esoteric:
he was an extraordinary soul who came into a physical human body in order to show humanity that ANYONE can achieve the Christ Consciousness, the creator status, on this planet if -- and that's a big if! -- they're willing to do the hard work required to experience such a state and implement the energy from it into the world.
he was a human being, yes. he was a divine soul, an avatara, yes. (aren't we all?) he had gurus, or teachers, who opened his channels and taught him ancient knowledge so that he could develop himself into the greatest soul healer who ever walked on this earth.
he was on intimate terms with the Mother Divine -- in effect, he was a Kali-worshipper, and made many spiritual negotiations and deals with Her in order to help lift the souls of this world and usher in a new era of spiritual evolution. his experience on the cross -- the beginning of his real life, not the end by any stretch of the imagination -- was his payment to Her for launching a spiritual initiation of this planet, a cycle of evolution from 'an eye for an eye' to 'love thy neighbor, even thy enemy, as thy self' that has taken 2000 years to come to some kind of fruition.
the historical life and times of Jesus are tremendously exciting to investigate, research, and hear about.
to me, though, the teachings and energy that he gave the planet -- 2000 years ago -- the universal Christ energy that he embodied and became -- is hugely more important and worth experiencing.
blessings, and namaste --
Alx -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Fri, June 23, 2006 - 7:47 PMHi Alx, I am excited that someone else here on tribe is interested in this aspect of Jesus' life. I have read all of Holger Kersten's books including Jesus Lived in India and would love to know of other reading I could do on this subject.
I totally agree with your assessment of Jesus. The more I read about Jesus and his Buddhist/eastern connections the more I understand what he was really trying to do.
Looking forward to hearing more,
Dian
-
Unsu...
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Tue, June 27, 2006 - 7:28 AMHi Alx,
It's nice to meet with you here again.
You wrote: "the historical life and times of Jesus are tremendously exciting to investigate, research, and hear about.
"to me, though, the teachings and energy that he gave the planet -- 2000 years ago -- the universal Christ energy that he embodied and became -- is hugely more important and worth experiencing."
Yes, precisely so. Historical considerations of Jesus are about trying to come to some sense of how we as persons can relate to the man that lived and died some 2000 years ago. Theological considerations are about trying to develop concepts that help us clarify his possible meanings in the Big Picture. But without an actual experience of his nature, all that intellectualism is of little value; it is somewhat like a deaf person studying and thinking about the meaning of Mozart's life.
Peace,
Griffin -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Wed, June 28, 2006 - 1:03 PMWhile I don't see the evidence as all that conclusive about what Jesus may have done in his early life, I don't object to the view that Jesus may have/probably did go to India as well as Egypt, etc.
It is certainly interesting all the stories told about Jesus, whether they are accurate or not. And accurate literal details aren't as important to me as spiritual meaning.
The word Shakti has to do with power, it is worth comparing stories about Durga and Kali, with stories of Thoth and Sekhmet, and Sophia and Dynamis. Though there are variations, there are some central themes at work that are very important to Gnosis.
Jesus was a garment worn by the Mother, yes, I agree with that, it is in the Trimorphic Protennoia and other ancient Gnostic texts that really speak to me. Barbelo (Mother-Father, Divine Forethought) put on the garments of beings in all realms, to come here and help all living things that had sparks in them.
Wisdom lost Power, Wisdom went looking to reclaim it and Wisdom was lost (lacking), but the Fullness of the Divine graciously overflows with a taste of the fullness of Wisdom's Power, together, the spiritually Desired-For Wisdom, and this ongoing activity of the Divine Fullness can be seen all over, and evidence of it is in many scriptures, the writings of many poets and philosphers, even sometimes it comes through between the words of corrupt rulers, if we can sift out the wheat from the chaff. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Wed, June 28, 2006 - 7:39 PMHi Carl,
One of the really fascinating things is that it is speculated that Jesus actually lived in India after the crucifixtion. I realize that that is a scandalous idea for some, but if the crucifixtion is viewed as a gnostic initiation, that did not lead to absolute bodily death, it makes more sense. There are Buddhist scriptures that were found which spoke of Jesus visiting the Buddhist teachers of the time as well. True, there is not nearly as much evidence as historians might want to say, yes, we think this is really true, but it is some very interesting food for thought and certainly leads to a more interesting, Gnostic version of Jesus.
Dian -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Wed, June 28, 2006 - 10:17 PMhi, Dian --
even the Q'ran, written a few hundred years later by divine dictation, says clearly that Christ survived the crucifixion. my teacher in India, when queried on this point, just looked annoyed and replied testily, "he's an IMMORTAL. do you really think anyone could kill an immortal?" and shook his head.
my understanding is that he did, in fact, return to India after the cross. then he REALLY got cooking.
Alx -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Wed, June 28, 2006 - 10:28 PMAll of these tales about Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the Apostles and Saints are very interesting and each reveal a different truth. I don't find debating the historical "fact" of such events as interesting, personally... it seems to me academia has that realm pretty well covered, and when the experts weigh in, it's usually because they're telling us what the physical evidence can tell us... which even many of them will admit is limited.
I don't know if a body of light leaves much physical evidence... so, as a mystic, I don't worry too much if these are historical tales or pure fiction. Regardless whether such stories are "fact" or "fiction", what is important to me are that the teachings such stories convey and whether they help to and facilitate inner shifts and an entrance of light presence. So this story is as good as any other I've heard.
I also heard that Thomas was over there in India building palaces of light... does your teacher tell any stories about him, by chance? -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 12:30 AMThings change rapidly in the field of archaeology, and archaeology has a great impact on history, hence it would be wise to keep ourselves open to the latest discoveries where the person of Jesus Christ is concerned. Simply saying "Well, we know all there is to know in this field of knowledge, therefore it would be okay to forget all about it and assume what we like" doesn't seem to be a very enlightened stance.
Jesus Christ did not come as a body of light, but as a real physical person, in a real physical body. The greatest debates in history have been on this topic. People have died violent deaths over this. Should we toss it aside so lightly then, as just another mundane detail? No, this is essential to the understanding, and if you don't want understanding, it means you don't want to know, and if you don't want to know, why are you here?
Knowledge is acquired when all opinion has been laid to rest. Opinion is not knowledge. A mystical encounter is fine, but it is no sign of knowledge. Having a vision is like listening to lectures or reading books. The fact that visions are experienced in a more conscious fashion doesn't mean it's not the same. When I say lemon, you experience a lemon. Simple. If I describe a lustful scene, you will experience that. Assuming what? Assuming you are listening to me.
I can tell you a wonderful tale about magical beings, dragons, magicians, and brave knights... but will there be any truth in those stories? Perhaps, if we're lucky, there will be. Maybe I will strike the truth in you with a few simple words. Maybe I'll speak over your head. Maybe my story will be uninspired. Maybe all wind and no fire. Who can say ahead of time how the words will come together?
Who is the author of your visions? If you want to know the truth, you'll have to look into this. But how can you know this in a place where the words of different authors create seemingly identical images? To know the author, look into the message. We reveal who we are with what we say.
We can learn a lot by listening. Don't hang your theories on other people's words and then call them geniuses. That's just vanity. Instead, listen to what they have to say and examine it with your intelligence. Does it sound reasonable? Are they contradicting themselves in any way? How?
Examine the New Testament and you will find that Jesus never contradicted himself -- not even once -- and that is a very remarkable thing. Whereas most of us contradict ourselves a few thousand times a day, Jesus didn't do it once in his whole entire life. He couldn't, as Jesus is the word of the author of Truth. Hence, there can be no contradiction in Jesus whatsoever. Not in being born. Not in dying. No way, no where, no how! -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 1:02 AMMany ancient Gnostics maintained that Jesus' form was different than an ordinary physical body, and some were docetists, I see no reason to quarrel with them, nor with you, on the subject.
I'm afraid that the attitude of:
>> No, this is essential to the understanding, and if you don't want understanding, it means you don't want to know, and if you don't want to know, why are you here?
sounds like all you are saying is, since this is essential to understanding in your view, people who disagree don't want understanding, and shouldn't be here.
I think it is more fruitful to simply say you vigorously disagree, without taking such an attitude.
A mystical encounter may be a sign of knowledge, or it may not, I do agree such encounters often need to be filtered and processed, often they aren't what they seem, or need a good bit of interpretation.
Especially when archaeology and history leave wide open spaces, we should feel free to speculate and follow our intuition or opinion. Some opinions are more well-informed than others.
But until archeaology/history come up with more solid reconstructions, I don't see why I should prefer their assumptions over others, dogmatically. I will prefer spiritual assumptions rooted in traditions that are fruitful on my spiritual path, to non-spiritual assumptions that are not fruitful to my path, and allow the physical facts to be whatever they are, but my path isn't about the physical so much as dealing with the quandary of the physical. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 3:23 AMmy personal feeling is that Jesus came in a physical body for many deep spiritual reasons. however he himself transformed, and whatever manifestations in or around his physical form this may have caused, remains to be seen -- it may be also that the early Gnostics referring to his form being a different kind of body was more about the inside structure rather than the outer appearance of his body.
be that as it may, on the subject of his historical life versus the energy of his truth, it would seem that modern religious structures have strayed so far from the essential teachings and energy of Christ that revelations (documented and carbon-dated) about his actual life history and circumstances (consider the Catholic reaction to The DaVinci Code, now multiply that exponentially as a reaction to Christ learning certain abilities in INDIA, omigawd) have to come out in order to break the grip of organized religions who've all tried to 'own' him and twist his teachings to suit their agendas in the world.
so -- it may well be the case that more discoveries about the truth of Jesus' life will in turn open the door to an increased, and perhaps more enlighted, understanding about his true message, his true meaning, and the mechanisms of miracle transformation and soul healing that he embodied.
that's my guess, at any rate.
Alx -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 12:49 PMGosh, it sounds like I came off with a more confrontational perspective that I meant to!
Sorry about that, my bad! :-)
What I meant to say was that Academics, as you say, Archeologists and such have that area of research and exploration well covered... anything I'd have to ponificate on the matter would be simply silly by comarison. It is better for me to read their books and accept their information and their debates on that subject and move on.
That being said, I'm a mystic, and I DO belive that Jesus came in a body of light after his crucifixion and gave NUMEROUS teachings as outlined in the Pistis Sophia and other Gnostic works. As Shakespeare said, "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosphy." That being said, considerations in science and modern philosophy has strongly colored my mystical perspective... so I'm not trying to deny the legitimacy of these, more mainstream area of exploration... I'm merely saying that this isn't all there is to say on the matter, and demarking MY area of focus.
But I'm not going to try to convince you, of my opinions, that's an academic exercise, which is useful when there is physical evidence to discuss. A mystic has no such physical evidence, so her/his style has to be a bit different. But I respect a person's views on the matter, even if they are VERY different than mine... and I think that it is VERY possible for a person to realize the ressurrection with views VERY different than mine as well... so I'd like to hold my views and affirm yours as well in my response! :-)
I think truth, wisdom and light can come from many different sources for many different people. As I said, archeology doesn't seem to invoke Christ into my experience, but that doesn't mean it doesn't for others. Each to her/his own, I say.
May the Peace an Joy of our IO Adoni be with us! May the spirit of Yaweh go with us!
Shalom!
P.S. ALX, I'm still waiting for a Thomas story, if you have one! ;-) -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 1:51 PMhey, Philip --
I didn't think you sounded confrontational.... huh. weird.
my feeling -- having seen an Indian saint deliberately leave his body for dead and then re-inhabit it, after a few days (up to 72 hours) -- it that Jesus didn't need a 'body of light' literally to move in the world and give his teachings post-crucifixion.
(wondering if it's hard for a modern audience to digest that there are beings on the planet today who are still doing the same miracles that Christ demonstrated milleniae ago.)
but, hey, that's just my own experience. I wouldn't hold to it as anything authoritative, except that I've seen someone do that process (die and then come back to life, deliberately) and no light body that I could perceive was involved after the fact.
re: Thomas -- well, that's a whole interesting chapter that I honestly don't know all that much about. I do know that he is said to have come back to India and left his body there, near Chennai (used to be called Madras). they say they have his samadhi tomb, there, in Chennai.
what he actually did in India, I'm not really sure.
I do know that Jesus came back to India with some of his students from Palestine. (many of whom, btw, were women.) it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Thomas was one of them.
I also know that his students had, for a time, the same miracle abilities as Christ himself had -- but they lost those abilities in a kind of crash-and-burn.
(now I'M waiting for the Thomas story -- what's with the light palaces?) <grinning>
Alx -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 2:05 PM& there is another shoe to drop in the understanding of Jesus, what kind of energy he is -- in the Indian tradition they call that energy "Dattatreya."
alxindia.blogspot.com/2004/12...dia.html
Alx
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 5:02 PM>> sounds like all you are saying is, since this is essential to understanding in your view, people who disagree don't want understanding, and shouldn't be here.
The name of this tribe is Gnostic Way, which implies that people gather here for a particular reason, and that reason is knowledge. Dividing physical and spiritual is the mistake of many of the early gnostic groups. Since they held matter to be completely corrupt, it was necessary to say that Jesus couldn't take a physical body, otherwise he would corrupt himself. The foundation of orthodoxy is that matter is not inherently corrupt, but redeemable, and so Jesus was able to come into the flesh and redeem it completely in one fell swoop. St. Padre Pio said that the miracle of our justification through Jesus is on par with the resurrection of Jesus Himself. We have in fact been justified, not because of what a Man has done, but because of what God Himself has done. Regardless of what anybody might say, through a book, sermon, vision, or whatever, we have already been justified. Do something once, do it right, never do it again. That is how intelligent people work. Intelligence is a gift from God. Hence.... :) -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 6:59 PMWell I was challenging you but I wasn't intending to be nasty or anything about it.
My thought was that since this is Gnostic Way, if people thought a good number of the ancient Gnostics were so wrong-headed on Jesus not being physical, I'm baffled as to why they would think docetism or such attitudes weren't Gnostic! :)
>> The name of this tribe is Gnostic Way, which implies that people gather here for a particular reason, and that reason is knowledge.
Not just any knowledge, though.
>> Dividing physical and spiritual is the mistake of many of the early gnostic groups.
I'm old-school, then. Not all is the same, differentiating one thing from another in some instances is crucially important to Gnosis. I do not believe that more recent traditions of 'gnosis' or Neo-Gnosticism, have improved upon the 'old school' Gnosis of the Apocryphon of John. I do not expect others to agree with me, because these ideas have always been controversial, apparently.
>> Since they held matter to be completely corrupt, it was necessary to say that Jesus couldn't take a physical body, otherwise he would corrupt himself.
Some seem to simply have viewed matter as incapable of handling perfect forms/ideas from the Mind of God, and found matter to be at its root based in ignorance to such a degree that it had to be recognized as different in kind from spiritual reality, lest it become a trap/prison/fetter/obstacle.
And for that reason they wished to emphasize the differencea nd contrast between the sort of relationship to a worldly vehicle of appearance that Christ had, as compared with our enslavement to flesh adn worldliness.
I'm a 'radical dualist', personally. Again, I do not expect others to agree with me. It seems to me that 'mitigated dualism' provides a vehicle for quite a bit of understanding that can lead to the discernment that helps foster Gnosis, I don't wish to be 'sectarian' about my own prefered types of Gnostic tradition and viewpoint. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Thu, June 29, 2006 - 7:38 PMMy personal take on gnosis is that it is meant to be an individual experience, so I do not think anyone is upset that we all have a slightly different perspective. I have really learned a lot from hearing everyone's viewpoints and I really want to thank you for sharing.
I know that in Buddhism, when an enlightened Master dies, his body becomes a true body of light, or rainbow body and the only thing left are small relics. Sometimes teeth or pieces of bone or crystialized spiritual matter. It is a fascinating thing and Jesus was certainly considered an Enlightened Master by the Buddhists.
Fiat Lux,
Dian -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Fri, June 30, 2006 - 1:42 AMAlx,
The story I heard about Thomas was that he was wandering around with Jesus after the resurrection (and I believe he came back in a body of light and a physical body as well... but the difference may be negligible, really in experience), and was about to give Thomas his mission. He'd already given several of the disciples their missions, and they all got good ones, so, as the "twin" of Jesus, he was expecting something extra-special.
Well, while walking through the marketplace, they happening to be moving through the slave trading area, at which point Jesus said, "Slave! Slave for sale!" Pointing to his disciple, Thomas.
Thomas was aghast. "Jesus, you don't mean you're going to sell me as a slave! I'm one of your closest disciples!"
To which Jesus replied, "well, you told me that you gave yourself to me fully, body, mind and soul. Were you lying?!"
To which Thomas shook his head no. So Jesus continued, "Slave! Slave for sale!"
Thomas was sold to representatives of a king in India who wanted to build palaces. Jesus sold Thomas at a very good price as an architect. There was only one problem, Thomas didn't know how to build anything on this earth. But, he was playfully nicknamed "The Architect" in the circle both positively and negatively (since the Demiurge is also called "The Architect").
Thomas had the talent of being able to travel on inner planes and to "build" realms and worlds which could be likened to the Enlightened realms of the Buddha in the East. So Thomas enacted this mystery, setting up a system to give all the money and resources that the Indian King gave Thomas to build a palace to give to the poor, feed the hungry, heal the sick and so on in the King's name. Of course, this was a part of Thomas' method for building this "light palace".
Well, word got around that there was no palace in the works, so the King traveled to see Thomas with the intention of executing him if he didn't see a palace in the works. So off he went with his closest advisors and his best executioner to visit Thomas. On the way, the King's paige fell into a lake while they were crossing in a boat, and, not being able to swim, and wearing heavy jewelry and rich clothing he quickly sank and began to drown. While this was happening, the king's paige had a vision.
He was escorted into the lavish palace, rich with gold, servants, and rooms within rooms. The servants of the palace welcomed the paige with open arms, and when he asked whose palace this was, the servants replied, "Why, it is your king's palace! We are keeping it for him and his closest servants on the day of your deaths!"
At this moment, the paige awoke from his vision on the boat, soaking wet, coughing up water, the King looking on with deep concern. The paige looked into his King's worried face and said urgently, "MY KING! YOU MUST NOT KILL YOUR SLAVE THOMAS! I HAVE JUST BEEN TO THE PALACE HE HAS BUILT FOR YOU AND YOUR CLOSEST SERVANTS! IT IS RESEVED FOR US ON THE DAY OF OUR DEATHS!!!"
With that, the King paid Thomas his visit and bestowed honors upon him instead of the death he had intended. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Sat, July 1, 2006 - 9:32 PMPhillip -- it's a beautiful story, thanks for sharing that. I wonder if it's true? it has the ring of something entirely plausible.
Alx
-
-
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Fri, June 30, 2006 - 2:18 AMSay Carl,
I know some of what my tradition teaches regarding a "radical dualist's" view, but the Sophian view isn't really a dualist school, so could you clarify what you mean when you say that you are a "radical dualist"?
Also, I've heard the Dualists have some interesting perspectives on the body of Jesus both before AND after the resurrection... I wonder if you'd be willing to share your perspective on that as well... ;-)
p -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Fri, June 30, 2006 - 10:52 PMwas that 'duellist' or 'dualist'? sometimes I can't tell the difference!
Alx -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Sun, July 2, 2006 - 1:29 AMI have been known to be a friendly duelist among sincere people who happen to disagree, but I meant dualist :)
-
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Sun, July 2, 2006 - 1:50 AMRe: dualism...
Perhaps it is best if I link to something I wrote a couple months ago that deals with some of it, since it is a difficult subject (Gnostic views about first principles), to help explain whatever I can't quite get to well enough in such a short space:
gnosticpath.blogspot.com/2006/...e.html
In summary, my view is:
Concerning mitigated dualism and teachings that are thought to lean towards monism: that teachings concerning a single unitary primary monad/source, are excellent vehicles for demonstrating the nature of a journey from home to a state of confusion, back home, the development of mind and perspective away from Fullness into Lack and back again. Such meanings are so important. I would not detract from such teachings, even though in my view many people miss the important meanings and over-emphasize a literal interpretation which may lead them to think simplistically or to avoid/deny distinctions between this world of lack and the spiritual fullness, or lead them to think there is only one cause for all things, which I do not agree with and in any case is not the primary message or purpose for telling such teachings, as I see things.
Concerning teachings about three primary roots/causes for everything, they convey quite a bit about the dynamic tensions and processes of mixture and separation, the sort of alchemy of spirit that is required for us to develop spiritually, they convey quite a bit about process, and again, these meanings are far more important than literal interpretations of three primary roots.
In any case, dogmatism and sectarianism about these or about other views (such as my own understanding of radical dualism) can detract from OTHER useful functions of such teachings. The fruitful function of the teaching is sometimes more important than the content or apparent meaning or verbal/logical structure according to worldly language and logic. We should aim for the higher understanding of verbal expression, the higher understanding of the spiritual blueprint within us, that can illuminate us.
Stark dualist teachings, where two primary root principles and how they interact, are described, can function very well at expressing stark contrasts in our experience, we do experience the perception of irreconcilable difference, of abysmal horror as well as indescribable bliss, there are phenomena of contrast that are very real, and by emphasizing two contrary principles, two logically distinct and contradicting principles, can help turn up the contrast, can help distinguish and clarify fruitful from unfruitful, healthy from sick, better from worse, and qualitatively different sorts of principles can be understood to help us stop trying to make sense of things that are ultimately rooted in ignorance and not rooted in gnosis, rooted in obstacle to spirituality not in spiritual return, etc.
In the most simplified terms (sorry!) I do not see the plurality of causes and kinds of phenomenon, as reduceable to only one root cause/essence. The very essence of what catylizes and results in rape and torture, for example, is irreconcilable with the very essence of what catylizes gnosis of spiritual fullness. Being stuck in the middle-ground, we experience both sorts of influences because our psyche is a result of this middle-ground between principles.
If there is a field with two trees in it, a good tree of spiritual life and an evil tree of lack of spiritual gnosis, it is the good tree of spiritual life that I would emphasize, and basking in its light, it FILLS my view. Yet in the field of experience, I am not always so close to that good and spiritual tree. In one sense, the other sort of tree really isn't a root principle or cause in the same way that the tree of light and spirituality is root and cause. So in one sense, there is only one that is worth turning toward, only one that is truly at rest and in light as a source of fullness. Yet in the field of experience, we are likely to emphasize experience itself as if it were a root, and in some sense, the tension between the field of interaction and the processes and activities of contrary principles, are three principles of experience. But in terms of the logic of essences, the One that we are pulled towards, is the foreigner, is OTHER, than some contrary sort of cause/influence/situation/phenomenon that is qualitatively different than such a One.
So...
There is One principle that is truly Above and worthy of our focus.
There are Three principles of our experience and the qualitatively better and the worse causes/influences/phenomena.
There are Two logical poles, principles, influences, logically, as part of the reality of non-contradiction.
We orient toward the One, while manifest among the Three, and we distinguish between the Two so that we do not contradict the Fullness and fall prey to the Lack.
That's as much as I can condense it, I apologize for the density of it, but I didn't feel comfortable leaving things out. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Sun, July 2, 2006 - 1:55 AMOne more link, I should have put it in there before, on the experiential basis of dualist teachings
gnosticpath.blogspot.com/2006/...e.html
Its wording/style is at times not as good as I would prefer, but the subject is so difficult, and it was an earlier entry on my blog, it was intended to get things going, as introductory, and experiential, unfortunately it was also one of the more wordy and sometimes difficult/awkward of my entries. But it does explain what I mean by dualism, rooted in personal experience instead of so much analysis/dogma. I tried very hard to integrate experience with the ideas. I think I acheived some of what I was going for anyhow. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Sun, July 2, 2006 - 6:31 PMThanks Carl!
Interesting stuff!
I hear what you're saying about dualist and non-dual views tending to be about method rather than dogma when approached in a spiritual/mystical way, which is why I enjoy hearing from other practictioners with views different than mine! It is interesting, my tradition utilizes the exact same terminology for one's spiritual view as "vehicle"... interesting, isn't it?
I hate to push, but I'd really like to hear your perspective on the body of Jesus, what it was in your view before the resurrection and after the resurrection? Was there a difference at all? If so what was the difference, if not, how/why no difference? -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, July 3, 2006 - 1:16 AMRe: bodies.
The reason I use the term 'vehicle' is because the usage of the term 'vehicle' in Buddhism and in other traditions, seemed useful to me, to express that a tool, a teaching, a body of some sort, is used to get some place, to do something, that it isn't the self, or to avoid the complex questions or assumptions that arise if one says things like 'religion' or 'body' etc.
To say that a teaching is a vehicle is to emphasize its use, to say that some personage in a religious tradition did something with their bodily vehicle or earthly vehicle, is to distance the reader from the association of people with their physical bodies or appearance or to distance the reader from the content of the teaching a bit, to focus perhaps on intention or effect.
In ancient texts, it may be said the Divine Forethought wore Jesus or other appearances like a garment, etc. The emphasis isn't on the garment and its substance or qualities, it is on the activity of the Divine through whatever it is coming through.
The material world, matter, physical bodies, are just 'stuff', they don't have spiritual insight or compassion, though perhaps they can produce a counterfeit appearance of such things. Real spiritual insight and compassion, wisdom, etc., is from elsewhere.
That I am in a body, does not define me. If my body were somehow a bit different from other people's bodies, would still not define me. The body is something I happen to be dealing with, I can deal with it in a better or worse manner.
Perhaps Jesus had a different sort of body, perhaps it was able to appear ordinary and material, but was different, able to transform, wasn't bound by the body's ignorance the way we are. It is possible that a transformation in such a bodily vehicle did occur, toward the end, whatever happened.
I do not personally emphasize history, when the subject is spiritual teaching, spiritual figures. I am so much more concerned about the meaning and what is going on, in spiritual layers of reality, that getting stuck on questions of literal interpretation, seems distracting.
I know there is a Christ. Whatever anyone thinks about a body of Jesus, it is the Christ that should concern us, is my view.
Physical bodies rot and die, flesh is what it is. Christ is not of the essence of rotting, dying, and flesh.
I understand a bit of how different views about Jesus' bodily vehicle, can function in different paths. The view that Jesus was adopted at Baptism, with the Christ then coming down to him, is sensible to me. The view that the Christ took on a special form/appearance, that was able to pass for physical, makes some sense too.
If something can be touched, and seems to act like a physical body, like flesh, enough to allow something to pass for a physical human, then it is understandable that many people will insist that that something is a physical human.
I hope I didn't dodge the question, but I don't claim to know ancient history or the sequence of literal physical events or the exact nature of appearances in experience in this world. I claim to have some measure of knowledge of spiritually important teachings and insights -- that is what pertains to Christ. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, July 3, 2006 - 2:42 AMThanks for your response...
I get what you're saying about literal history, and I don't necessarily need to believe that the story of Jesus was true in the way that it occurred, that it was one many, or ANY man in particular, however I also believe that there is a literal dimension of the bible and scriptures that is worth considering, strictly in a mystical and practical way, rather than a dogmatic way, because I believe in miracles and magic and such things, being a wierdo mystic and all...
You said:
"The view that Jesus was adopted at Baptism, with the Christ then coming down to him, is sensible to me. The view that the Christ took on a special form/appearance, that was able to pass for physical, makes some sense too."
This is an interesting thought... what do you mean by "adopted" and who were his "original" parents, metaphysically speaking? What do you mean by "special" form/appearance... this doesn't sound very physical...
What a delightful discussion!
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, July 3, 2006 - 9:29 AMPhillip,
Thank you very much for your contributions to this discussion.
Peace,
Griffin
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, July 3, 2006 - 10:31 PMI don't deny that in space time there are crucial metaphysical events or something like that, and I do tend to think there was such a special moment involving Christ.
In the Apocryphon of John, the Christ is a luminous spark that is begotten by the hidden invisible spirit (the hidden spiritual father), and the divine forethought/womb of the entirety/mother-father/divine mind/Barbelo.
As for a special form/appearance, if we take seriously the claim that Jesus mysteriously passed through crowds without being apprehended, walked on water, etc., what kind of PHYSICAL body can do that? It does seem that the claim made in the NT Gospels is that the appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion was even more mysterious, Mary was told not to touch it, he passed through walls, etc. If it could appear tangible, then it could appear ordinary, a convenient costume so he could communicate more effectively with people. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, July 3, 2006 - 11:23 PMhi, Carl --
I spent many years in India learning the behind-the-scenes mechanisms of how miraculous healings and manifestations occur -- you were asking, if Christ passed invisible through crowds (as most yogis can do!!!!!), walk on water, etc., (which many yogis and saints from various traditions, before and since Jesus, have done), what kind of body can do that?
the response from the yogic point of view is: a body which houses a soul that's so purified in the Five Elements of creation (earth, fire, sky (or ether), water and air) that the soul can command the elements with ease and turn one thing into another (like sand to a gemstone, water to wine, illness to perfect health).
but it's still a body. I've seen my master demonstrate identical miracles to those of Christ -- he is a divine soul, a purified, liberated soul but is STILL inhabiting a physical body.
in yoga samadhi processes (where a person takes their soul literally out of their form, leaving the body for dead), it's not uncommon to not be able to touch the physical body of the person who's just returned to their body. they need to integrate, or something, for a period of time after having left the body as a dead heap on the floor for a few days.
to me, it's apparent that part of what Jesus did was to demonstrate a yoga samadhi process in addition to his crucifixion. telling Magdalene not to touch him when he first comes to her makes perfect sense to me.
Alx
-
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Mon, July 3, 2006 - 11:25 PMoh, and in response to the Christ energy being the spark created by divine mother and divine father, yes, absolutely. Jesus attained the Christ energy, as I understand his process -- and many great saints since have done similar work, have reached, also, the Christ consciousness and BECOME the Christ consciousness.
in a way, one can say that Jesus (the person who took a human birth and experienced a human body) became the walking embodiment of the Christ Consciousness. I think that's why some literature refers to Jesus the Christ.
Alx
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Tue, July 4, 2006 - 12:12 AMIn the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, it illustrates how when disturbances, the ripples of distortion in the mind, are calmed, much is possible in such states, when they are enduring.
I'd been reading some Samkhya materials recently, the dance of Pakriti, the entanglement of the three gunas, can be untangled, and then its dance is no longer enchanting on a Parusha. The idea is that by distinguishing what is NOT the self, we can become dis-entangled. To know we are not the elements, nor the perception of elements, nor the sort of instinctual mind that integrates perceptions and activities, nor the I-maker/Ahamkara which is just a function of awareness/consciousness when activated (Rajas prednominant).
When the vehicle is no longer mis-identified as the self, on a deep level of intuitive and experiential Knowledge, then the vehicle can be used more freely, as it reflects the self more clearly, since the self is not as confused and therefore the vehicle is reflecting less confusion.
Bodhi (awareness/consciousness) in the purified state, can look to its Parusha, and Parush knows that the I-maker and perceptual/activating aparatuses/phenomena are not itself, the Parusha can know that even the awareness/consciousness of Bodhi, is not the self either.
I think less 'gross' bodies can appear 'physical' sometimes, under certain circumstances.
In any case, transformations of substances in different layers of reality, can be quite complex and varied, so I'd leave a lot of speculations open as to what is actually going on, from mere perception to some actual transformation on some level. -
-
Re: Who/What was Jesus?
Tue, July 4, 2006 - 1:11 AMyup.
(moreover, Prakriti and Purusha are again just other names for divine Mother and Father.... progenitors of the Christ energy.)
Alx
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
