The central theme that always attracted me to the notion of the Thomas Gospel was the idea that it was closer to the original, than the later descriptions of Jesus which we know from the New Testament. I always like to make clear that there's nothing wrong with liking Paul's version, but I do wonder did he HAVE to call it Christianity? Why not be honest and call it Paulinity? Oh well, it would be a little late to change that now, so let's just leave that as a joke, which is how I intended it: seriously tongue in cheek. But you get my point.
In the last thirty years or so a small but growing group of people are finding a connection to the voice which the recognize as Jesus' through A Course In Miracles, which saw the light in 1975. And it did not take for too long or the book gave rise to whole shelves full of literature. The vast majority of that literature quotes the book for the author's own purposes, and simply uses Course material out of context. No doubt all of this happens with the best intentions, but that does not guarantee anything. The standout among the crowd of Course literature undoubtedly is Ken Wapnick, who originally helped Helen Schucman to prepare the book for print, and who always had an affinity for teaching this material. His books are the standard, and their forte is that they do not EVER add anything to the Course, but essentially always explains the Course with the Course, Ken just knows it so well, he is always able to pull together related materials and help you deepen your understanding. When he does speak about other things, it is in a manner of re-integrating those from a Course perspective, never mixing up the Course. He is also thoroughly modest, because he fully understands that the very point of his teaching work is NOT to add anything to the Course, but simply help people understand it. This is why he's been heard to say when people ask him to write his biography, that it's irrelevant, and he frequently jokes about his workshops, and why people keep coming back, as he says the same thing all the time.
And then there's Gary Renard, to whose work I owe so much. The series title for his books could have been "A Course in Miracles for Dummies," in the understanding that we're all dummies when we start the Course. Gary's claim to fame is that he explains the Course in the vernacular, and that's fair. But it's also the context of the books that makes the Course more approachable, we the readers are simply identifying with the hero of these adventures, and learning the Course along with him. To make it easy and eliminate all sorts of undesirable associations, he calls Jesus simply "J". His books are very much "real life," really the adventure stories of by now about 20 years of Gary's life, as he is learning the Course. They are irreverent, fun, occasionally almost slapstick comedy, and they offer us all plenty of chances to identify with the hero of the story and learn from his experiences.
The rest of the books about the Course tend to run from outright attempts to argue that the Course says things it does not say, even though the book is of amazing consistency, to books which use ideas and concepts from the Course in the context of their author's own presentation, which is OK, though it can be problematic if there seems to be a suggestion that such books represent the Course, when they clearly do not. Like so many people my initial coming to the Course went via another author, Jerry Jampolsky, whose books I devoured within a month in '91, and by that time I was wondering why I wasn't reading the Course itself instead of the numerous quotes in those books, and then, when I did start reading the Course, I found out that it was saying something very different than the way I had found it quoted in those books. In much the same way, Marianne Williamson brought more people to the Course than anybody else, but she uses it in her own way. I'm personally not too interested in most of that "almost" Course literature, and I get much more about say reading Alan Kershaw's biography of Hitler, as a way of realizing just how the ego mind works, and again, looking at it in a very different light.
But, this current experience is also higly illustrative of what happened in the gap between Jesus and Paul. And it should be emphasized that the thing we know as Christianity was only one of thousands of flavors who all considered themselves Christians. If you actually took the trouble to read Paul's letters, you would find there his gradual development of his interpretation of Jesus. And while Christianity may work for many people, if it's Jesus you're interested in, again, as long as you can get the original, why get the copy? The Germans had a beautiful expression for cheap plastic knockoffs arriving from Hong Kong and Japan in the postwar years, "Ganz wie echt aber viel schöner." (Just like the real thing, but much nicer). That says it all. This ties in with e.g. Logion 113 of Thomas, where Jesus says, as the disciples ask him when the Kingdom will come, "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Behold here,' or 'Behold there.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it." And so the best way for the ego to defend against the Kingdom is to ratchet up the production of knockoffs, so that we should continue not to see it, and be distracted by cheap substitutes of our own making, so much so that the substitutes are wildly more popular. The only difference now is that the Course is widely available, and has already sold millions of copies, not to mention is currently available in 18 languages, although there are knockoffs available too. So if you want to read it, get yourself the 3rd edition from the Foundation for Inner Peace, who are the original publishers authorized by Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford, and fully endorsed by them. Stick to the original.
To come back to Paul one moment, once you start getting it why Jesus is talking about something else altogether, it would also seem understandable why his teaching would get distorted. The gap between Jesus (33CE) and the Pauline letters in itself was only 30 years, and if the Thomas gospel is from 50CE and the letters from Paul starting in 60-65CE, that was 10-15 years out of that total span. The notion of Pursah in Gary's books is by implication that the sayings collection grew from the ca 70/71 she regards as authentic, to the 114 that were found at Nag Hammadi, by picking up extra material that was not originally part of it.
♦
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Back to Basics
The other day I posted about the exact issues of how to mentally disentangle the Christian construct of Jesus from the Jesus of the Thomas gospel. This theme is very much in line with my recent discussion of the materials of Stevan Davies, who is a Biblical scholar who has done an incredible job in identifying how the story changed between the Thomas gospel, which dates from the year 50CE, and the later Canonical Gospels, which are dated from ca. 65CE (Mark) onwards. The most significant difference is that in the period 60-65CE, Paul's writings appear on the scene and the influence of his thinking very much sets the tone for the whole New Testament, and so, if you were to put the NT in proper chronological order, the letters of Paul should come first, then Mark, then Matthew and Luke, and then John and Revelation.
If you reordered the books that way, you'd instantly understand why it's such a big difference that the Thomas Gospel was 15 years or so earlier than that: Paul is in between. A simple way of looking at it is that the New Testament reflects the way that Paul said we should look at Jesus. That is a very different thing than the teachings of Jesus proper. The Thomas Gospel has only statements directly attributed to Jesus, and NONE of the interpretations which Paul developed, and which became the basis of Christian theology. Another way of putting it is that Christianity--leaving aside for a moment that there are some 25,000 flavors of it--is merely one interpretation of Jesus, so perhaps more correctly we should speak of one set of interpretations, of him. One way or another Paul looms large in the inception of it, and I think the fair way of interpreting those events is to say that Jesus was a spiritual teacher, and Paul posthumously made a religion out of him. No doubt he had the best intentions, but that does not mean he said the same thing, he interpreted, explained, elaborated, and added on his own concepts.
In order to expand a bit more on some of this basic information, I'm going to do several posts here to discuss some very fundamental stuff that provides the foundation for my book, Closing the Circle--the topic of this blog.
Here is how it all fits together. As I like to point out to people by way of a joke, the first thing to know is, it's not my fault, and the second thing to know is, it's all Gary Renard's fault. So blame him. Complaints in triplicate, press hard, three copies. Without Gary, I would not be in this mess, and I would not have had to write this book. Jokes aside, this is the right sequence of events, but today I want to explain some more details of the chronology.
Whether we are Christians or not, if we grew up in the West, we grew up in a culture dominated by Christianity, and we're all more or less familiar with the chronology, although some of the fine distinctions I'm making about the first 75 years are not generally known, they reflect an insight that has been evolving particularly since the rediscovery of the now famous book collection at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945, which dated back to the time (ca. 365 CE) when the young Church was just making decisions as to what books would make up the New Testament, and some monk had the foresight to bury a collection of books the Church did not like. What we found we owe to the foresight of this monk, and the Thomas gospel was probably the most important part of that find.
Now to explain my own relationship to all of this for a moment, let me say first that I was never a Christian, but for some reason I was interested in the teachings of Jesus. Thanks to a Dutch author, Johan Willem Kaiser, who among other things produced an incredibly insightful translation and commentary of the Gospel of Mark, I had an understanding early on that Jesus and Christianity were two different things, and since thankfully I learned to read Greek, I could at least study some of the original material, and filter out some of the theological coloration which has characterized later translations of the Bible, and via that route I tried to come back to an understanding of the original teaching of Jesus. For me the central issue always seemed to be that he was about spiritual experience, not about theology or morality. In short, Jesus was not a Christian.
The Thomas gospel began to appear in translation in the 1950's and slowly the biblical research came in motion which ultimately led to the almost inevitable conclusion I presented above. It predated the other gospels. Personally I saw Jesus as a spiritual teacher, not too different from Buddha, Krishna, Socrates, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramakrishna and Krishnamurti. Their focus was always on learning truth through personal spiritual experience, including the notion that the truth is within and knowable, if we just learn the mental hygiene not to confuse ourselves all the time with other values and thoughts that have nothing to do with the price of beans. For me the Thomas gospel was never an easy read, much of the research and interpretation I found cumbersome and less than helpful, so for a long time I regarded it as merely an interesting curiosity.
For me something changed when I discovered A Course in Miracles in 1991. First of all this book (usually abbreviated ACIM), which was channeled in the late 60's by a Dr. Helen Schucman, who was a Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in NY, and published in 1975, is attributed to Jesus. And the way he comes across in its pages is exactly that, as a spiritual teacher, with a focus on the experience of truth, not on theology. The book is very profound, highly integrated, and incorporates really a unique amalgam of Western and Eastern thought, including everything from Plato, the Bible, Shakespeare, and some of the premises of Freudian psychoanalysis not to mention some of the therapeutic orientation of Carl Rogers. That list could easily be expanded further. The bottom line is, for me it was intuitively clear that the intelligence speaking to me through the pages of ACIM was Jesus as I sensed he taught originally and for all time. The teacher of Truth. Not a teacher of Christian theology. Just Truth with a capital T. I had studied the Course for 12 years before Gary Renard appeared on the scene, but then the magic started...
In 2003, three books appeared, with the same publication date, Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, Elaine Pagels' Beyond Belief, and Gary Renard's The Disappearance of the Universe. In short, indirectly the Thomas Gospel was in the air, for all three touch on it. The first two were more in the main stream, and they awakened an interest in the Thomas gospel and related materials, Gary's book however was a surprise hit in its own right. He had never been published before, and he was with a very small publisher, and yet before you knew it, he sold 100,000 copies, and the book was acquired by Hay House. It was in Gary's book that the connection was made between the original teachings of Jesus in the Thomas Gospel, and ACIM, and it was in his second book, Your Immortal Reality, (2006), that one of his teachers, Pursah presented her kernel of the Thomas Gospel of just 70 sayings of Jesus (compared to the 114 of the Nag Hammadi text), which she says really sounded like Jesus. Her selection makes a lot of sense, so for me at the moment, I'm totally focused on that collection of 70 sayings from Thomas as being the least suspect kernel of his original teachings, but they are still fragmentary. Thus the greater context for me is provided by A Course in Miracles.
In my next few posts I will talk a bit more about the characters involved, to make the foundation of my work on the Thomas Gospel even clearer.
If you reordered the books that way, you'd instantly understand why it's such a big difference that the Thomas Gospel was 15 years or so earlier than that: Paul is in between. A simple way of looking at it is that the New Testament reflects the way that Paul said we should look at Jesus. That is a very different thing than the teachings of Jesus proper. The Thomas Gospel has only statements directly attributed to Jesus, and NONE of the interpretations which Paul developed, and which became the basis of Christian theology. Another way of putting it is that Christianity--leaving aside for a moment that there are some 25,000 flavors of it--is merely one interpretation of Jesus, so perhaps more correctly we should speak of one set of interpretations, of him. One way or another Paul looms large in the inception of it, and I think the fair way of interpreting those events is to say that Jesus was a spiritual teacher, and Paul posthumously made a religion out of him. No doubt he had the best intentions, but that does not mean he said the same thing, he interpreted, explained, elaborated, and added on his own concepts.
In order to expand a bit more on some of this basic information, I'm going to do several posts here to discuss some very fundamental stuff that provides the foundation for my book, Closing the Circle--the topic of this blog.
Here is how it all fits together. As I like to point out to people by way of a joke, the first thing to know is, it's not my fault, and the second thing to know is, it's all Gary Renard's fault. So blame him. Complaints in triplicate, press hard, three copies. Without Gary, I would not be in this mess, and I would not have had to write this book. Jokes aside, this is the right sequence of events, but today I want to explain some more details of the chronology.
Whether we are Christians or not, if we grew up in the West, we grew up in a culture dominated by Christianity, and we're all more or less familiar with the chronology, although some of the fine distinctions I'm making about the first 75 years are not generally known, they reflect an insight that has been evolving particularly since the rediscovery of the now famous book collection at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945, which dated back to the time (ca. 365 CE) when the young Church was just making decisions as to what books would make up the New Testament, and some monk had the foresight to bury a collection of books the Church did not like. What we found we owe to the foresight of this monk, and the Thomas gospel was probably the most important part of that find.
Now to explain my own relationship to all of this for a moment, let me say first that I was never a Christian, but for some reason I was interested in the teachings of Jesus. Thanks to a Dutch author, Johan Willem Kaiser, who among other things produced an incredibly insightful translation and commentary of the Gospel of Mark, I had an understanding early on that Jesus and Christianity were two different things, and since thankfully I learned to read Greek, I could at least study some of the original material, and filter out some of the theological coloration which has characterized later translations of the Bible, and via that route I tried to come back to an understanding of the original teaching of Jesus. For me the central issue always seemed to be that he was about spiritual experience, not about theology or morality. In short, Jesus was not a Christian.
The Thomas gospel began to appear in translation in the 1950's and slowly the biblical research came in motion which ultimately led to the almost inevitable conclusion I presented above. It predated the other gospels. Personally I saw Jesus as a spiritual teacher, not too different from Buddha, Krishna, Socrates, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramakrishna and Krishnamurti. Their focus was always on learning truth through personal spiritual experience, including the notion that the truth is within and knowable, if we just learn the mental hygiene not to confuse ourselves all the time with other values and thoughts that have nothing to do with the price of beans. For me the Thomas gospel was never an easy read, much of the research and interpretation I found cumbersome and less than helpful, so for a long time I regarded it as merely an interesting curiosity.
For me something changed when I discovered A Course in Miracles in 1991. First of all this book (usually abbreviated ACIM), which was channeled in the late 60's by a Dr. Helen Schucman, who was a Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in NY, and published in 1975, is attributed to Jesus. And the way he comes across in its pages is exactly that, as a spiritual teacher, with a focus on the experience of truth, not on theology. The book is very profound, highly integrated, and incorporates really a unique amalgam of Western and Eastern thought, including everything from Plato, the Bible, Shakespeare, and some of the premises of Freudian psychoanalysis not to mention some of the therapeutic orientation of Carl Rogers. That list could easily be expanded further. The bottom line is, for me it was intuitively clear that the intelligence speaking to me through the pages of ACIM was Jesus as I sensed he taught originally and for all time. The teacher of Truth. Not a teacher of Christian theology. Just Truth with a capital T. I had studied the Course for 12 years before Gary Renard appeared on the scene, but then the magic started...
In 2003, three books appeared, with the same publication date, Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, Elaine Pagels' Beyond Belief, and Gary Renard's The Disappearance of the Universe. In short, indirectly the Thomas Gospel was in the air, for all three touch on it. The first two were more in the main stream, and they awakened an interest in the Thomas gospel and related materials, Gary's book however was a surprise hit in its own right. He had never been published before, and he was with a very small publisher, and yet before you knew it, he sold 100,000 copies, and the book was acquired by Hay House. It was in Gary's book that the connection was made between the original teachings of Jesus in the Thomas Gospel, and ACIM, and it was in his second book, Your Immortal Reality, (2006), that one of his teachers, Pursah presented her kernel of the Thomas Gospel of just 70 sayings of Jesus (compared to the 114 of the Nag Hammadi text), which she says really sounded like Jesus. Her selection makes a lot of sense, so for me at the moment, I'm totally focused on that collection of 70 sayings from Thomas as being the least suspect kernel of his original teachings, but they are still fragmentary. Thus the greater context for me is provided by A Course in Miracles.
In my next few posts I will talk a bit more about the characters involved, to make the foundation of my work on the Thomas Gospel even clearer.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Lemme 'splain
Today I was in a social situation, where my book came up, as part of introductions, and I got to practice (again) just how to explain simply where it fits. I had to be exact, for there was an evangelical theologian in the company. I'm finding that it is becoming easier and easier to do as I go along, and the notion is simple, Jesus was not a Christian, since that faith was invented after his time.
Jesus and the Buddha were spiritual teachers in their day and age, just like Krishnamurti was one in our day, and they were not founders of religions. Krishnamurti was very specific about that. Those religions were founded afterwards, by followers - Krishnamurti has been spared that fate sofar.
The fact that those followers did not necessarily teach the same thing as the people in whose name they built these religious systems has become blatantly clear from the Thomas gospel because it is the oldest of the Gospels, predating St. Paul by some 20 years, and it contains nothing at all of the theological ideas that made Christianity what it is. Moreover the dating of the Thomas gospel prior to the canonical Gospels, which reflect the editorial influence of Paul, is clear. Besides the absence of key (Christian) theological ideas, there is the fact that in the case of many sayings which later do appear in the Canonical Gospels, the form of those sayings is invariably more primitive in Thomas, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Thomas had to come first.
So the rest is a matter of personal preference. If Christianity works for you, fine. If you're interested in the teachings of Jesus in their own right, the Thomas gospel should be one of your primary sources, and you should clear your head of the cobwebs of Christianity. That's all there is to it. The biggest reason that people have had problems understanding the Thomas gospel, is because they cannot mentally sort out that the Jesus who speaks in Thomas is not a Christian. It is absolutely necessary that you're clear about that, otherwise you're bound to keep on misreading him.
Jesus and the Buddha were spiritual teachers in their day and age, just like Krishnamurti was one in our day, and they were not founders of religions. Krishnamurti was very specific about that. Those religions were founded afterwards, by followers - Krishnamurti has been spared that fate sofar.
The fact that those followers did not necessarily teach the same thing as the people in whose name they built these religious systems has become blatantly clear from the Thomas gospel because it is the oldest of the Gospels, predating St. Paul by some 20 years, and it contains nothing at all of the theological ideas that made Christianity what it is. Moreover the dating of the Thomas gospel prior to the canonical Gospels, which reflect the editorial influence of Paul, is clear. Besides the absence of key (Christian) theological ideas, there is the fact that in the case of many sayings which later do appear in the Canonical Gospels, the form of those sayings is invariably more primitive in Thomas, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Thomas had to come first.
So the rest is a matter of personal preference. If Christianity works for you, fine. If you're interested in the teachings of Jesus in their own right, the Thomas gospel should be one of your primary sources, and you should clear your head of the cobwebs of Christianity. That's all there is to it. The biggest reason that people have had problems understanding the Thomas gospel, is because they cannot mentally sort out that the Jesus who speaks in Thomas is not a Christian. It is absolutely necessary that you're clear about that, otherwise you're bound to keep on misreading him.
Friday, February 20, 2009
On Choosing the Crucifixion
Each day, each hour and minute, even each second, you are deciding between the crucifixion and the resurrection; between the ego and the Holy Spirit. The ego is the choice for guilt; the Holy Spirit the choice for guiltlessness. The power of decision is all that is yours. What you can decide between is fixed, because there are no alternatives except truth and illusion. And there is no overlap between them, because they are opposites which cannot be reconciled and cannot both be true. You are guilty or guiltless, bound or free, unhappy or happy. (ACIM:T-14.III.4)
This book about Krishnamurti is without a doubt the definitive biography on him and it makes worthwhile reading. His story continues to amaze, and it is extremely instructive, especially because of the way K emphasized that he was not exceptional, that the path was open to all of us. There can be no question that Charles Leadbeater saw something, when he identified K's aura as being exceptional when he was a little child, but then Leadbeater got increasingly stuck in ritual and bombast which makes the world very real, while K grew up to know the awakening, which he realized was a path that is open to us all. His descriptions of what that means are certainly classic, like when he speaks of the river emptying in the ocean, and that at that point it's no longer meaningful to speak of the river, and he ends up referring to he own persona as merely K and in the 3rd person from then on.
He also saw through the whole cult that was being created around him and what a sham it was, because it persistently chose form over content, and almost unbelievably he ended up dismantling it at the very moment that the mantle was being passed to him, in his famous speech "Truth is a pathless land," in 1929.
I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect... Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organise a belief... If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountaintop to the valley. If you would attain the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. You must climb towards the Truth, it cannot be 'stepped down' or organised for you... (as quoted in Roland Vernon, Star in the East, p. 181, spoken by JK on August 3rd 1929)
To learn this course requires willingness to question every value that you hold. Not one can be kept hidden and obscure but it will jeopardize your learning. No belief is neutral. Every one has the power to dictate each decision you make. For a decision is a conclusion based on everything that you believe. It is the outcome of belief, and follows it as surely as does suffering follow guilt and freedom sinlessness. There is no substitute for peace. What God creates has no alternative. The truth arises from what He knows. And your decisions come from your beliefs as certainly as all creation rose in His Mind because of what He knows. (ACIM:T-24.in.2)
P.S. Something more about this book. Not only is it the best Krishnamurti biography, I would argue that it is the best introduction to his thought. The Mary Luytens biography was good, but in all fairness falls in the category of hagiography, not biography, she was clearly an early follower and an admirer. The book by Radha Rajagopal Sloss, the daughter of the wife of his longtime business manager, with whom (the mother), K had a 25 year relationship, while her marriage was completely dysfunctional, and it was the product of resentment, appealing to negativity. This book is marvelously balanced, but also truly renders a great picture of the intellectual landscapes where K traveled, and thus it provides a very helpful introduction to his thinking against the background of his life story.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Who is Gary Renard Anyway?
Without a doubt, my book Closing the Circle, would not have been written without Gary Renard, and while I've done reviews of his books here, both The Disappearance of the Universe, and Your Immortal Reality, it may just be time for me to talk about the phenomenon Gary Renard. While we're at it, I might as well mention the fact that Gary does have a website, www.garyrenard.com and he is very proud of it; he thought of the name himself, as he will tell you at the drop of a hat.
Well, by now Gary is a bestselling author, whatever that means, and his books have been translated by now into some eighteen languages, which is impressive also. I myself am translating his work into Dutch, which is my native language. Gary was a low energy kid with scoliosis, which was recognized much too late, who liked to study the guitar. At one point in the seventies he took enough time off from drinking beer, to take Werner Erhart's EST training, which for him proved instrumental in getting his music career on track. He did achieve a modicum of success in the Boston area, being that he is from Massachussetts originally. After retiring from his musical career he moved with his then wife, Karen, to Maine, and attempted to survive by speculating on the stock market with too little capital, something which wasn't always as successful as he might have wished apparently. He had also practiced meditation for a long time, and felt that it was helpful to him.
One day in the early nineties he experienced a powerful spiritual awakening, which started when he came out of his morning meditation, and found two people sitting on his living room couch, who seemed to have materialized out of nowhere. A conversation ensued, in which they revealed themselves as ascended masters, named Arten and Pursah in the story. Gary's books really are his account of his meetings with Arten and Pursah. Disappearance (usually abbreviated as DU) covers about a decade, and Your Immortal Reality (YIR) covers September 2003 through December 2005, and a third book, covering his further meetings with his teachers since then, is now due to appear later this year. By the end of the first book, Arten and Pursah reveal to Gary that they have in previous lives been the apostles Thaddeus and Thomas respectively, and further that in fact Gary himself once was incarnated as Thomas, and that in effect Pursah as she appears to him is who he himself will be in his next life, while Arten is who he will marry in his next life, but will also know in this life, where Arten is a woman, who he hasn't met yet at the time of this conversation in DU. Before we get to this point however, Arten and Pursah introduce Gary in their second meeting to A Course in Miracles, a book which Gary had heard of, but did not know, and which they assure him is the teachings of Jesus in modern form, except they refer to him as J, because too many people have negative associations with the name Jesus.
In a way then, the rest of the meetings really revolve around Gary's own learning of A Course in Miracles, but Arten and Pursah also teach him that the meaning of the Course only comes from experiencing for ourselves how our lives change when we practice what it says, as Gary indeed does, on top of which they impart certain experiences to him which further demonstrate the principles of the Course. One important aspect of all this is in fact the holographic nature of our experiential reality of the universe of time and space, without which the very meetings with Arten and Pursah make no sense in the first place. In other words the books themselves, or rather the stories in them, are the demonstration of the very thing they describe, and thus also are they a demonstration of the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles. A central aspect thereof is the notion that "incarnation" is an upside down perception of the actual nature of the experience, which is that the characters in the dream reality which we think is our life, are actually projections of our mind through which we seem to experience our reality, and we all have the capability of remembering various other roles which we played, and in the book Arten and Pursah help Gary to an experience in which he briefly sees thousands of former and future lives of himself. This also demonstrates a second point, namely that within the holographic model of our experiential world, past and future are the same, and equally illusory, no different from choosing right or left when you walk out the front door, or, you choose one movie or another in a multiplex cinema. In short, again, the story of Gary's experiences is itself the demonstration of a very abstract teaching, which thus comes to life, and through empathy as readers with the main character, who is just a bumbling fool like most of us, who has no idea what to do with his life, we come to a whole new level of understanding of ourselves.
Meanwhile, in all simplicity, most people get attracted to reading The Disappearance of the Universe--the title is fascinating in and of itself-- because of the subtitle, which is: Straight talk about Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness. I mean, what more do you want? Meanwhile the connection is made between the original teachings of Jesus in the Thomas Gospel and A Course in Miracles. In the first book 22 Logia of the Thomas gospel are discussed, the ones Pursah suggests are most easily accessible to a modern reader, and in the second book Pursah presents a "kernel" of 70 sayings which she feels are authentic and original teachings of Jesus, and the point is made throughout that there is a consistency of meaning between those teachings and A Course in Miracles. This last idea is the central notion that led me to choose the title for my own book, for through that bridge between the Jesus of the Thomas gospel and the Course, the circle is closed between 2000 years ago and today.
Well, by now Gary is a bestselling author, whatever that means, and his books have been translated by now into some eighteen languages, which is impressive also. I myself am translating his work into Dutch, which is my native language. Gary was a low energy kid with scoliosis, which was recognized much too late, who liked to study the guitar. At one point in the seventies he took enough time off from drinking beer, to take Werner Erhart's EST training, which for him proved instrumental in getting his music career on track. He did achieve a modicum of success in the Boston area, being that he is from Massachussetts originally. After retiring from his musical career he moved with his then wife, Karen, to Maine, and attempted to survive by speculating on the stock market with too little capital, something which wasn't always as successful as he might have wished apparently. He had also practiced meditation for a long time, and felt that it was helpful to him.
One day in the early nineties he experienced a powerful spiritual awakening, which started when he came out of his morning meditation, and found two people sitting on his living room couch, who seemed to have materialized out of nowhere. A conversation ensued, in which they revealed themselves as ascended masters, named Arten and Pursah in the story. Gary's books really are his account of his meetings with Arten and Pursah. Disappearance (usually abbreviated as DU) covers about a decade, and Your Immortal Reality (YIR) covers September 2003 through December 2005, and a third book, covering his further meetings with his teachers since then, is now due to appear later this year. By the end of the first book, Arten and Pursah reveal to Gary that they have in previous lives been the apostles Thaddeus and Thomas respectively, and further that in fact Gary himself once was incarnated as Thomas, and that in effect Pursah as she appears to him is who he himself will be in his next life, while Arten is who he will marry in his next life, but will also know in this life, where Arten is a woman, who he hasn't met yet at the time of this conversation in DU. Before we get to this point however, Arten and Pursah introduce Gary in their second meeting to A Course in Miracles, a book which Gary had heard of, but did not know, and which they assure him is the teachings of Jesus in modern form, except they refer to him as J, because too many people have negative associations with the name Jesus.
In a way then, the rest of the meetings really revolve around Gary's own learning of A Course in Miracles, but Arten and Pursah also teach him that the meaning of the Course only comes from experiencing for ourselves how our lives change when we practice what it says, as Gary indeed does, on top of which they impart certain experiences to him which further demonstrate the principles of the Course. One important aspect of all this is in fact the holographic nature of our experiential reality of the universe of time and space, without which the very meetings with Arten and Pursah make no sense in the first place. In other words the books themselves, or rather the stories in them, are the demonstration of the very thing they describe, and thus also are they a demonstration of the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles. A central aspect thereof is the notion that "incarnation" is an upside down perception of the actual nature of the experience, which is that the characters in the dream reality which we think is our life, are actually projections of our mind through which we seem to experience our reality, and we all have the capability of remembering various other roles which we played, and in the book Arten and Pursah help Gary to an experience in which he briefly sees thousands of former and future lives of himself. This also demonstrates a second point, namely that within the holographic model of our experiential world, past and future are the same, and equally illusory, no different from choosing right or left when you walk out the front door, or, you choose one movie or another in a multiplex cinema. In short, again, the story of Gary's experiences is itself the demonstration of a very abstract teaching, which thus comes to life, and through empathy as readers with the main character, who is just a bumbling fool like most of us, who has no idea what to do with his life, we come to a whole new level of understanding of ourselves.
Meanwhile, in all simplicity, most people get attracted to reading The Disappearance of the Universe--the title is fascinating in and of itself-- because of the subtitle, which is: Straight talk about Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness. I mean, what more do you want? Meanwhile the connection is made between the original teachings of Jesus in the Thomas Gospel and A Course in Miracles. In the first book 22 Logia of the Thomas gospel are discussed, the ones Pursah suggests are most easily accessible to a modern reader, and in the second book Pursah presents a "kernel" of 70 sayings which she feels are authentic and original teachings of Jesus, and the point is made throughout that there is a consistency of meaning between those teachings and A Course in Miracles. This last idea is the central notion that led me to choose the title for my own book, for through that bridge between the Jesus of the Thomas gospel and the Course, the circle is closed between 2000 years ago and today.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monty Python's Life of Brian
My friend Annelies reminded me that it was time for some serious fun and sent me this youtube link from the end of Monty Python's Life of Brian, which has to be one of the most delicious spoofs ever. It's the song Always Look at the Bright Side of Life and it sure as hell is a solid antidote at any time if you're at risk of taking life too seriously.
It always reminds me too of the work of the very serious gnostic teacher from the second century, Valentinus, whose school believed that during the crucifixion the real Jesus was looking on watching the crucifixion from under a tree, and smiling, in a manner not dissimilar to Buddha's meditation under the Bodhi tree, where you see him being attacked by angry demons, except he isn't there, it's just the empty seat, for the Buddha knows like Jesus knows that even the worst attack the world can make is pointless, because it is completely meaningless, not to mention not real. This of course is just another way of expressing the notion that the crux (pun not intended) of Jesus' teaching surely was the resurrection, and not the crucifixion.
And so, when we take the world too seriously, we can always be reminded of this and ask these great teachers to show us a better way of looking at things, after all, even in the face of death, what are you going to do? Die five minutes later? We knew going in what the deal was, we were going to die sometime, so what's a few minutes between friends? What's the difference, so the only things that are frightening in this world are so only because we believe they are, and if we change our belief, they can no longer frighten us. This is no different than a little kid who is afraid of the monsters under his bed. You help them change their belief system, and that's what Jesus or Buddha are there to help us do, because they fully realized the knowledge that the world is not real, and there is nothing to fear but fear itself.
In the Thomas Gospel it is amongst other things Logion 42, Be passersby, which reminds us of the same wisdom. Don't take life too personally, for it will kill you
With that thought, I've gotta get back to work now.
It always reminds me too of the work of the very serious gnostic teacher from the second century, Valentinus, whose school believed that during the crucifixion the real Jesus was looking on watching the crucifixion from under a tree, and smiling, in a manner not dissimilar to Buddha's meditation under the Bodhi tree, where you see him being attacked by angry demons, except he isn't there, it's just the empty seat, for the Buddha knows like Jesus knows that even the worst attack the world can make is pointless, because it is completely meaningless, not to mention not real. This of course is just another way of expressing the notion that the crux (pun not intended) of Jesus' teaching surely was the resurrection, and not the crucifixion.
And so, when we take the world too seriously, we can always be reminded of this and ask these great teachers to show us a better way of looking at things, after all, even in the face of death, what are you going to do? Die five minutes later? We knew going in what the deal was, we were going to die sometime, so what's a few minutes between friends? What's the difference, so the only things that are frightening in this world are so only because we believe they are, and if we change our belief, they can no longer frighten us. This is no different than a little kid who is afraid of the monsters under his bed. You help them change their belief system, and that's what Jesus or Buddha are there to help us do, because they fully realized the knowledge that the world is not real, and there is nothing to fear but fear itself.
In the Thomas Gospel it is amongst other things Logion 42, Be passersby, which reminds us of the same wisdom. Don't take life too personally, for it will kill you
With that thought, I've gotta get back to work now.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Coming Soon: Gary Renard in Amsterdam
As I'm working my way through the final bits of translating Gary Renard's newest book, Love Has Forgotten No One, which is now slated to appear in Dutch about four months before it appears in English, and will be introduced at Gary's workshop in Amsterdam on May 23rd, with a booksigning in the American Bookstore on the Spui in Amsterdam on the day before, May 22nd, I'm also playing a background role with the preparation of the re-launch of his books on the Dutch market, as an outflow of my role as translator.
And my friend and collaborator in Holland, Annelies (www.xanga.com/liesje56knegt), just posted a marvelous video about Gary's work, and about the forgiveness teachings of A Course in Miracles, which are nothing more or less than the original teachings of Jesus, with which we are familiar from the Thomas Gospel, but presented in modern form. This little video presentation is a joy and a half to watch, so I wanted to post it here.
Forgiveness Video This one is worth watching!!!
Meanwhile, the first step of this process is a new release in March of Gary's 1st book, The Disappearance of the Universe, in an all new Dutch translation by yours truly. All new, because in the prior Dutch version Gary said approximately the opposite of what he said in English about once every other page or so, and his meaning was being misconscrewed (there's a Gary-ism for you) in minor ways several times a page. Now of course the interesting thing will be to see if it makes any difference for the sales of his book. That would be the proof I'm eager to see. Sofar I'm having fun submitting some articles here and there in the Dutch press, and begin to draw attention to this major cultural invasion, that is about to hit their shores. I thought I was going to watch it from New York, but it now appears that I may make it over there for the event. I'm sure I'll report more on this as it unfolds.
And my friend and collaborator in Holland, Annelies (www.xanga.com/liesje56knegt), just posted a marvelous video about Gary's work, and about the forgiveness teachings of A Course in Miracles, which are nothing more or less than the original teachings of Jesus, with which we are familiar from the Thomas Gospel, but presented in modern form. This little video presentation is a joy and a half to watch, so I wanted to post it here.
Forgiveness Video This one is worth watching!!!
Meanwhile, the first step of this process is a new release in March of Gary's 1st book, The Disappearance of the Universe, in an all new Dutch translation by yours truly. All new, because in the prior Dutch version Gary said approximately the opposite of what he said in English about once every other page or so, and his meaning was being misconscrewed (there's a Gary-ism for you) in minor ways several times a page. Now of course the interesting thing will be to see if it makes any difference for the sales of his book. That would be the proof I'm eager to see. Sofar I'm having fun submitting some articles here and there in the Dutch press, and begin to draw attention to this major cultural invasion, that is about to hit their shores. I thought I was going to watch it from New York, but it now appears that I may make it over there for the event. I'm sure I'll report more on this as it unfolds.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Mary Magdalene Revisited
For some reason Mary Magdalene has been on my mind, so I figured it's time to write about her for Valentine's day. Every since the re-discovery of numerous materials that were left out of the New Testament, there has been growing attention to Mary Magdalene, but even the little that was in the New Testament books was intriguing. The notion that she was the first to understand the resurrection, and thus became the one to bring the news to the other apostles, making her the Apostle to the Apostles, is intriguing, and makes it all the more surprising that she should have exited stage left. In the various other books, perhaps the most interesting description of her relationship with Jesus comes from the Gospel of Philip, as follows:
There are other cute references to the apostles being bothered by the closeness of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and many have observed the logic that not only would it have been strange if Jesus wasn't married, but also the role which Mary Magdalene played at the time of the crucifixion, including going to the grave to anoint the body would be thoroughly consistent with the role of a wife. There is nothing explicit in the literature that definitively identifies her as Jesus' wife, but it simply makes sense. It is important to note however that not only was she physically close with him, but that there is extensive evidence that the Apostle to the Apostles was indeed a teacher in her own right and in all probability understood what Jesus stood for better than anybody. So much the more amazing that she should fade away in the literature.
At least it is now clear enough that the story of her as a penitent prostitute was a fabrication probably going back to Pope Gregory I, in 591, however that particular story fits in with the efforts of the church to trivialize her, and to shore up the importance of the "official" apostles, centered really on Peter and the theological foundations provided by Paul. The relative neglect of her, and later the attempt to deliberately trivialize her, do make sense if you take into account the fact that in Paul's theological framing of who Jesus was, he is made completely different from us. In that context having Jesus be married would be very inconvenient. Even more so towards the Middle Ages, when the emphasis on celibacy grew in importance and was ultimately made church law, at least in the Roman Catholic church, it becomes all the more important to think that Jesus was above all that, and was exceptional in that regard as well.
From the standpoint of A Course in Miracles it all makes more sense, for the fundamental underlying notion of the Course is that our spiritual growth happens only in relationships, and not by trying to abandon the world in that sense. The very simple logic of the Course is that the ego's notion of separation seeks to reassert itself by relationships to others, starting with parents and siblings, and then evolving to love interests. These relationships make us special (think Valentine's day), and besides that seem to give us the sense of completion which we gave up in embracing the separation, which is the very foundation of our individuality. The Course is based on the notion that the separation can only be healed in relationships, through outgrowing the specialness, and embracing again the Holy Relationship--to thine own Self be true--and therein to transcend our specialness claims on another and learn to embrace inclusive love as the Course means it, which can flow through us and extend into the world through our relationships, as we learn forgiveness ourselves. In this context, when we invite the Holy Spirit into our lives, in lieu of chasing the ego's goals, our partners become our teachers, and our relationships become the cradle for the rebirth of the Holy Relationship, which then becomes the central reality in the way we relate to everything in the world. This way the relationships which are started by the ego to reassert itself, form the perfect vehicle in the hands of the Holy Spirit, to relearn the meaning of universal Love through those very relationships.
There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ] loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often[]. The rest of the disciples [were offended by it and expressed disapproval.] They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"
And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ] loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often[]. The rest of the disciples [were offended by it and expressed disapproval.] They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"
There are other cute references to the apostles being bothered by the closeness of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and many have observed the logic that not only would it have been strange if Jesus wasn't married, but also the role which Mary Magdalene played at the time of the crucifixion, including going to the grave to anoint the body would be thoroughly consistent with the role of a wife. There is nothing explicit in the literature that definitively identifies her as Jesus' wife, but it simply makes sense. It is important to note however that not only was she physically close with him, but that there is extensive evidence that the Apostle to the Apostles was indeed a teacher in her own right and in all probability understood what Jesus stood for better than anybody. So much the more amazing that she should fade away in the literature.
At least it is now clear enough that the story of her as a penitent prostitute was a fabrication probably going back to Pope Gregory I, in 591, however that particular story fits in with the efforts of the church to trivialize her, and to shore up the importance of the "official" apostles, centered really on Peter and the theological foundations provided by Paul. The relative neglect of her, and later the attempt to deliberately trivialize her, do make sense if you take into account the fact that in Paul's theological framing of who Jesus was, he is made completely different from us. In that context having Jesus be married would be very inconvenient. Even more so towards the Middle Ages, when the emphasis on celibacy grew in importance and was ultimately made church law, at least in the Roman Catholic church, it becomes all the more important to think that Jesus was above all that, and was exceptional in that regard as well.
From the standpoint of A Course in Miracles it all makes more sense, for the fundamental underlying notion of the Course is that our spiritual growth happens only in relationships, and not by trying to abandon the world in that sense. The very simple logic of the Course is that the ego's notion of separation seeks to reassert itself by relationships to others, starting with parents and siblings, and then evolving to love interests. These relationships make us special (think Valentine's day), and besides that seem to give us the sense of completion which we gave up in embracing the separation, which is the very foundation of our individuality. The Course is based on the notion that the separation can only be healed in relationships, through outgrowing the specialness, and embracing again the Holy Relationship--to thine own Self be true--and therein to transcend our specialness claims on another and learn to embrace inclusive love as the Course means it, which can flow through us and extend into the world through our relationships, as we learn forgiveness ourselves. In this context, when we invite the Holy Spirit into our lives, in lieu of chasing the ego's goals, our partners become our teachers, and our relationships become the cradle for the rebirth of the Holy Relationship, which then becomes the central reality in the way we relate to everything in the world. This way the relationships which are started by the ego to reassert itself, form the perfect vehicle in the hands of the Holy Spirit, to relearn the meaning of universal Love through those very relationships.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Here is one clear example of how things come full circle, and therefore it underscores the reasons why the title of my book is Closing the Circle.
As Stevan Davies shows in his article Mark's Use of the Gospel of Thomas, Part I here is another case of total transformation. He takes as the main sources for the idea Logia 13 and 108, and then shows how the idea is developed into something altogether different, and unsurprisingly most definitely Christian, in the treatment in Mark.
Imitatio Christi is one of those theological concepts, which besides the later book by Thomas à Kempis, De imitatione Christi, gained some de facto early recognition in the development of Christianity, particularly in the early ages when it became fashionable to pursue martyrdom, as if that were the meaning of following Jesus, to die on the cross, or something closely similar, and to die for one's beliefs, as if Jesus was a mere religious fanatic. These concepts are always popular for it is the core of the ego's belief system.
The psychologically very profound presentation of A Course in Miracles really clarifies, how and why the Christian theological framework is really an embodiment of the ego's thoughtsystem, and diametrically opposite to what Jesus taught originally. Fundamentally this boils down to the idea that the ego-identity thinks it is really something, when Jesus in the Course dismisses it as a "tiny, mad, idea" (ACIM:T-27.VIII.6:2), in other words the ego IS the thought of separation, the thought that says it would be possible for part of God to exist separately and independently of him, and the manifestation of that thought is our body identity in the world. We thus think in our infinite stupidity, that what the Course calls "accepting the atonement," i.e. realizing inside that the separation is not only impossible, but never really happened, is absolutely a dangerous and deadly thought, which must be prevented at all cost. The atonement in the ego's eyes means that we must give up our ego's kingdom, which we call our "life" to accept his Kingdom, not of this (i.e. the ego's) world, and since our ego's would rather be right than happy (c.f. ACIM:T-29.VII.1:9). The ego portrays this as if we are giving up something for nothing, whereas Jesus is firmly of the opinion that we are giving up nothing (our illusory separate existence, which is making us miserable) for everything (his Kingdom, Heaven, Love, Happiness, returning Home, etc.). Thus it is indeed an ego thing to invest Jesus with suffering, as if that were the essence of his ministry, and then make it seem that the essence of our following him is to suffer like him. Well with that kind of advertising, few people would want to. So getting yourself crucified became briefly popular in early Christianity, but unsurprisingly the majority of people thought it was not such a hot idea. So this part of the story ends up with Jesus and a few saints getting themselves crucified, and the rest of the world placing their hope in this vicarious salvation.
What Jesus teaches and taught instead is that we simply need to realize that the ego idea simply is a joke, and not at all a reality, but an illusion we've bought into, and which resulted in the terrible nightmare which we call our life, but which is not our ultimate reality. His program of forgiveness shows us the way out of the insanity, and back towards Heaven. And that program begins with taking a step back from identifying with our bodily identity first, and learning again that what we really are is spirit.
Therefore the first step is actually in Logion 42, which Pursah calls her favorite: "Be passersby." It is an admonition to not identify with our role(s) in the world, not take them seriously, but to step back from that identification, and become more contemplative. It is in effect the first step of his forgiveness process. Another aspect of it is indeed contained in Logion 13, in the realization and understanding that the world is not ready to hear what Jesus teaches, and the question is not if the world will hear, but rather if we will hear, because then we won't need the world anymore. Finally Logion 108 is indeed a beautiful description of the meaning of following Jesus:
As Stevan Davies shows in his article Mark's Use of the Gospel of Thomas, Part I here is another case of total transformation. He takes as the main sources for the idea Logia 13 and 108, and then shows how the idea is developed into something altogether different, and unsurprisingly most definitely Christian, in the treatment in Mark.
Imitatio Christi is one of those theological concepts, which besides the later book by Thomas à Kempis, De imitatione Christi, gained some de facto early recognition in the development of Christianity, particularly in the early ages when it became fashionable to pursue martyrdom, as if that were the meaning of following Jesus, to die on the cross, or something closely similar, and to die for one's beliefs, as if Jesus was a mere religious fanatic. These concepts are always popular for it is the core of the ego's belief system.
The psychologically very profound presentation of A Course in Miracles really clarifies, how and why the Christian theological framework is really an embodiment of the ego's thoughtsystem, and diametrically opposite to what Jesus taught originally. Fundamentally this boils down to the idea that the ego-identity thinks it is really something, when Jesus in the Course dismisses it as a "tiny, mad, idea" (ACIM:T-27.VIII.6:2), in other words the ego IS the thought of separation, the thought that says it would be possible for part of God to exist separately and independently of him, and the manifestation of that thought is our body identity in the world. We thus think in our infinite stupidity, that what the Course calls "accepting the atonement," i.e. realizing inside that the separation is not only impossible, but never really happened, is absolutely a dangerous and deadly thought, which must be prevented at all cost. The atonement in the ego's eyes means that we must give up our ego's kingdom, which we call our "life" to accept his Kingdom, not of this (i.e. the ego's) world, and since our ego's would rather be right than happy (c.f. ACIM:T-29.VII.1:9). The ego portrays this as if we are giving up something for nothing, whereas Jesus is firmly of the opinion that we are giving up nothing (our illusory separate existence, which is making us miserable) for everything (his Kingdom, Heaven, Love, Happiness, returning Home, etc.). Thus it is indeed an ego thing to invest Jesus with suffering, as if that were the essence of his ministry, and then make it seem that the essence of our following him is to suffer like him. Well with that kind of advertising, few people would want to. So getting yourself crucified became briefly popular in early Christianity, but unsurprisingly the majority of people thought it was not such a hot idea. So this part of the story ends up with Jesus and a few saints getting themselves crucified, and the rest of the world placing their hope in this vicarious salvation.
What Jesus teaches and taught instead is that we simply need to realize that the ego idea simply is a joke, and not at all a reality, but an illusion we've bought into, and which resulted in the terrible nightmare which we call our life, but which is not our ultimate reality. His program of forgiveness shows us the way out of the insanity, and back towards Heaven. And that program begins with taking a step back from identifying with our bodily identity first, and learning again that what we really are is spirit.
Therefore the first step is actually in Logion 42, which Pursah calls her favorite: "Be passersby." It is an admonition to not identify with our role(s) in the world, not take them seriously, but to step back from that identification, and become more contemplative. It is in effect the first step of his forgiveness process. Another aspect of it is indeed contained in Logion 13, in the realization and understanding that the world is not ready to hear what Jesus teaches, and the question is not if the world will hear, but rather if we will hear, because then we won't need the world anymore. Finally Logion 108 is indeed a beautiful description of the meaning of following Jesus:
J said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth shall become like me. I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed that person." (PGoth, Logion 108)
The same thing is implied in the forgiveness process of the Course, and the idea that we should need to forgive Jesus, because as long as we think he is different from us, we have not forgiven ourselves either, but if we finally do accept the atonement for ourselves, and thus know we are forgiven, we will also be coming from the exact same point of reference as he does, and therefore be exactly like him in fully knowing that our reality is spirit and not the body. And that is also the logic behind the Course's explanation of the crucifixion, as being simply a demonstration of the truth that since we are not our body, even the total destruction of that body makes no difference to what we are:The crucifixion is nothing more than an extreme example. Its value, like the value of any teaching device, lies solely in the kind of learning it facilitates. It can be, and has been, misunderstood. This is only because the fearful are apt to perceive fearfully. I have already told you that you can always call on me to share my decision, and thus make it stronger. I have also told you that the crucifixion was the last useless journey the Sonship need take, and that it represents release from fear to anyone who understands it. While I emphasized only the resurrection before, the purpose of the crucifixion and how it actually led to the resurrection was not clarified then. Nevertheless, it has a definite contribution to make to your own life, and if you will consider it without fear, it will help you understand your own role as a teacher.
You have probably reacted for years as if you were being crucified. This is a marked tendency of the separated, who always refuse to consider what they have done to themselves. Projection means anger, anger fosters assault, and assault promotes fear. The real meaning of the crucifixion lies in the apparent intensity of the assault of some of the Sons of God upon another. This, of course, is impossible, and must be fully understood as impossible. Otherwise, I cannot serve as a model for learning.
(ACIM:T-6.I.2,3)
So, clearly, here Jesus tells us that it is not necessary to follow him in form, and get ourselves crucified, but only to learn from his extreme example, that indeed even that would make no difference to what we are. His point is here that if we fully know that spirit is the essence of what we are, we will also fully know that we are totally invulnerable forever. Our only problem arises from identifying with the perishable, our bodies, which then puts us in a fearful position, for everything in the world is a potential threat to that body. Here is finally the point Jesus makes in the Course, about our need to forgive him, i.e. to accept the atonement for ourselves, and thus finally accept that we are the same has he is, not to mention once again that this is framed within our relationships in the world, which are thus transformed into the Holy Relationship:You have probably reacted for years as if you were being crucified. This is a marked tendency of the separated, who always refuse to consider what they have done to themselves. Projection means anger, anger fosters assault, and assault promotes fear. The real meaning of the crucifixion lies in the apparent intensity of the assault of some of the Sons of God upon another. This, of course, is impossible, and must be fully understood as impossible. Otherwise, I cannot serve as a model for learning.
(ACIM:T-6.I.2,3)
I have great need for lilies, for the Son of God has not forgiven me. And can I offer him forgiveness when he offers thorns to me? For he who offers thorns to anyone is against me still, and who is whole without him? Be you his friend for me, that I may be forgiven and you may look upon the Son of God as whole. But look you first upon the altar in your chosen home, and see what you have laid upon it to offer me. If it be thorns whose points gleam sharply in a blood-red light, the body is your chosen home and it is separation that you offer me. And yet the thorns are gone. Look you still closer at them now, and you will see your altar is no longer what it was. (ACIM:T-20.II.4)
And so again we come full circle with the Thomas Gospel. In ACIM Jesus corrects the numerous ways his message was distorted, in the Thomas Gospel we find his teaching before all the distortions began, and Pursah's version even eliminates from the Thomas Gospel some distortions which have seemingly crept into the tradition.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Logion 22 - the Intros and the Outros
As students of the Pursah version of the Thomas Gospel we noticed that she is skeptical of the authenticity of what I'm calling loosely the intros and the outros, the latter of which is really an insertion of some material in the actual logion itself.
In my earlier comment on this Logion, I therefore focused on the kernel of it, as Pursah presents it in Gary Renard's Your Immortal Reality. I want to add some comments here on the sections she leaves out. In terms of the introductory section which Stevan Davies calls 22a in his article on Mark's use of the Gospel of Thomas, Part I it is extraordinarily interesting to observe how the older version (even if Pursah does not consider it authentic in the first place) of it speaks of being like a baby, but by the time we get to Mark it speaks of actual babies. The transition is thus from a purely abstract point that is being illustrated with a parable, towards the point where the story line seems to be in the specific, not the abstract point being made. In terms of the mode of expression in A Course in Miracles, this evolution is thus from Level 1 to Level 2, where we start mistaking the specifics for the point of the story, and begin to forget that abstract point that was being made. This is very plain in the Markan version, which sounds sweet enough, but risks losing the point, and represents the sort of evolution which is completely par for the course of the deterioration in the tradition:
The other add on, at the end of the kernel statement itself is the insertion of "when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image" at the end of the clause, which kind of does not fit with the statement about the healing of duality, which talks in terms of making male and female one.
When you read the whole of Logion 22 a few times, and you consider Pursah's edits, it will be blatantly obvious that her edits make complete intuitive sense, for the sections she takes out are evidently out of place, and have no relationship to the central point being made. This is one of the many reasons why my comfort with Pursah's version grew as I worked with the material. It really became a case of the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The other part which seemed really convincing to me, is that again it is always the ego's strategy to substitute specifics for the truth, which is always abstract, and which is our natural mode of being and thinking. The Course discusses this as follows:
The point being made here is that the purpose of perception with our senses is exactly the substitution of the abstract with specific. The ego wants us to see the trees, not the forest, for once we see the forest, the ego is out of business. Again, this demonstrates precisely why we resist Jesus' teaching, and therefore why these texts became so corrupted so quickly.
PS: Title chosen in the fond memory of Frank Zappa.
In my earlier comment on this Logion, I therefore focused on the kernel of it, as Pursah presents it in Gary Renard's Your Immortal Reality. I want to add some comments here on the sections she leaves out. In terms of the introductory section which Stevan Davies calls 22a in his article on Mark's use of the Gospel of Thomas, Part I it is extraordinarily interesting to observe how the older version (even if Pursah does not consider it authentic in the first place) of it speaks of being like a baby, but by the time we get to Mark it speaks of actual babies. The transition is thus from a purely abstract point that is being illustrated with a parable, towards the point where the story line seems to be in the specific, not the abstract point being made. In terms of the mode of expression in A Course in Miracles, this evolution is thus from Level 1 to Level 2, where we start mistaking the specifics for the point of the story, and begin to forget that abstract point that was being made. This is very plain in the Markan version, which sounds sweet enough, but risks losing the point, and represents the sort of evolution which is completely par for the course of the deterioration in the tradition:
People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16 NIV)
The other add on, at the end of the kernel statement itself is the insertion of "when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image" at the end of the clause, which kind of does not fit with the statement about the healing of duality, which talks in terms of making male and female one.
When you read the whole of Logion 22 a few times, and you consider Pursah's edits, it will be blatantly obvious that her edits make complete intuitive sense, for the sections she takes out are evidently out of place, and have no relationship to the central point being made. This is one of the many reasons why my comfort with Pursah's version grew as I worked with the material. It really became a case of the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The other part which seemed really convincing to me, is that again it is always the ego's strategy to substitute specifics for the truth, which is always abstract, and which is our natural mode of being and thinking. The Course discusses this as follows:
Complete abstraction is the natural condition of the mind. But part of it is now unnatural. It does not look on everything as one. It sees instead but fragments of the whole, for only thus could it invent the partial world you see. The purpose of all seeing is to show you what you wish to see. All hearing but brings to your mind the sounds it wants to hear.
Thus were specifics made. (ACIM:W-161.2-3:1)
Thus were specifics made. (ACIM:W-161.2-3:1)
The point being made here is that the purpose of perception with our senses is exactly the substitution of the abstract with specific. The ego wants us to see the trees, not the forest, for once we see the forest, the ego is out of business. Again, this demonstrates precisely why we resist Jesus' teaching, and therefore why these texts became so corrupted so quickly.
PS: Title chosen in the fond memory of Frank Zappa.
The Santa Claus Syndrome
When I was very little, I (which is to say through my parents) knew this woman who I now feel channeled Jesus. Her name was Ms. Hofmans. She did not usually refer to him as Jesus, but referred to him generally as the Help, or God's Help. She always emphasized this faculty was always present to anyone who needed and wanted it, but she also always pointed out that Jesus was not like Santa Claus, and that the deal was to accept the Help on his terms, not on your terms. Her focus was always on praying with you more than for you, though she would frequently also channel messages, but the focus was clear, asking for Help meant letting go of your definition of the problem. In other words, let go of your preconceived notions of what the problem is and what the solution might be. This runs entirely counter to what the world wants.
This is also the psychological foundation of why Christianity reconstrued Jesus' teaching completely, and its theology creates an escape hatch from his urging to follow him to a Kingdom not of this world, and replaces it with a theology in which we get to have our cake and eat it too. We get to have our lives the way we think we want it, and he'll come back to save us later. Pfui. It was a close call, but at least we got away with it, or so it seems. So we leave him safely hanging on the wall, on his little wooden cross, and we don't have to bother with him much, but just go on and do our thing. He'll catch up with it later. Of course this kind of thinking also sets up a certain level of fear of him, that runs totally contrary to what he is and teaches, which is par for the course for separation in any form. We end up hating that from which we separate, but then feel subliminally threatened by it.
The Jesus we do want, is the Santa Claus version, which Ry Cooder sings about Jesus On The Mainline - "You can call him up and tell him what you want," "The line ain't never busy, you can call him up and tell him what you want." (What a gifted musician, by the way, and it is one of my favorite songs of his, look at the versions that are there on youtube!!!) We see that reenacted daily in various "predicitions" of the second coming, or the coming of the Maitreya, etc. etc. etc. This is the vicarious savior, who dies for our sins, instead of us (which is what the word vicarious means - standing in for), who gives HIS life for OUR "sins," that type of a savior is par for the course for the ego, which wants to keep us firmly asleep, and not feeling responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in, instead of taking responsibility for our spiritual well-being. Or as I said before, we get to have our cake and eat it too, and Jesus comes back afterwards to fix the booboo, at least as story would have it.
The teachings of Jesus as we find them in the Thomas gospel, and in a more current form in A Course in Miracles, are more direct, and about taking responsibility for the way in which we see the world, and once we do that, Jesus can indeed help us to change our way of looking at the world and our experiences. That change of mind is his process of forgiveness, which is the way out of the hell hole. So the vicarious savior fits with a picture where we don't have to take responsibility for anything, and the world happens to us. Jesus the Inner Teacher, as he is expressed through the Thomas sayings and in A Course in Miracles, show us how to change our own role in the miserable experience we're having, by letting go of our judgment, and choosing his forgiveness instead. That is the way out of hell, it is empowering. This prayer goes a bit like this: "I've got it all wrong, I seem to be caught up in all of this mess, please help me see this differently." Again, therein lies the way out. Like any good therapist knows, no healing is possible unless the patient at least begins to acknowledge their responsibility for the predicament they are in. "And please tell me, who was it again who found nineteen abusive husbands/boyfriends in a row?" Nothing changes until we deal with our role in the fiasco, and decide to change our mind about it. In the end it turns out to be a lot less painful if we stop banging our head against that concrete wall. Turns out Jesus is a pretty savvy therapist, then.
My recent explorations on this blog on the transformation from the direct teachings of Jesus to the later versions of him which became Christianity, and were adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, serve to put us in touch with how we all mangle his message, which turns out to be inconvenient, because we do prefer to be right, more so than happy.
This is also the psychological foundation of why Christianity reconstrued Jesus' teaching completely, and its theology creates an escape hatch from his urging to follow him to a Kingdom not of this world, and replaces it with a theology in which we get to have our cake and eat it too. We get to have our lives the way we think we want it, and he'll come back to save us later. Pfui. It was a close call, but at least we got away with it, or so it seems. So we leave him safely hanging on the wall, on his little wooden cross, and we don't have to bother with him much, but just go on and do our thing. He'll catch up with it later. Of course this kind of thinking also sets up a certain level of fear of him, that runs totally contrary to what he is and teaches, which is par for the course for separation in any form. We end up hating that from which we separate, but then feel subliminally threatened by it.
The Jesus we do want, is the Santa Claus version, which Ry Cooder sings about Jesus On The Mainline - "You can call him up and tell him what you want," "The line ain't never busy, you can call him up and tell him what you want." (What a gifted musician, by the way, and it is one of my favorite songs of his, look at the versions that are there on youtube!!!) We see that reenacted daily in various "predicitions" of the second coming, or the coming of the Maitreya, etc. etc. etc. This is the vicarious savior, who dies for our sins, instead of us (which is what the word vicarious means - standing in for), who gives HIS life for OUR "sins," that type of a savior is par for the course for the ego, which wants to keep us firmly asleep, and not feeling responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in, instead of taking responsibility for our spiritual well-being. Or as I said before, we get to have our cake and eat it too, and Jesus comes back afterwards to fix the booboo, at least as story would have it.
The teachings of Jesus as we find them in the Thomas gospel, and in a more current form in A Course in Miracles, are more direct, and about taking responsibility for the way in which we see the world, and once we do that, Jesus can indeed help us to change our way of looking at the world and our experiences. That change of mind is his process of forgiveness, which is the way out of the hell hole. So the vicarious savior fits with a picture where we don't have to take responsibility for anything, and the world happens to us. Jesus the Inner Teacher, as he is expressed through the Thomas sayings and in A Course in Miracles, show us how to change our own role in the miserable experience we're having, by letting go of our judgment, and choosing his forgiveness instead. That is the way out of hell, it is empowering. This prayer goes a bit like this: "I've got it all wrong, I seem to be caught up in all of this mess, please help me see this differently." Again, therein lies the way out. Like any good therapist knows, no healing is possible unless the patient at least begins to acknowledge their responsibility for the predicament they are in. "And please tell me, who was it again who found nineteen abusive husbands/boyfriends in a row?" Nothing changes until we deal with our role in the fiasco, and decide to change our mind about it. In the end it turns out to be a lot less painful if we stop banging our head against that concrete wall. Turns out Jesus is a pretty savvy therapist, then.
My recent explorations on this blog on the transformation from the direct teachings of Jesus to the later versions of him which became Christianity, and were adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, serve to put us in touch with how we all mangle his message, which turns out to be inconvenient, because we do prefer to be right, more so than happy.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Letting Go of the Past
This is a most enjoyable book, and also very moving and profound: Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II Fighter Pilot. A
little boy remembers a past lifetime as a world war II fighter pilot and
his parents research the whole thing. On his father's part, who was the
driver of the research, the intention was to disprove reincarnation,
while his mother being more accepting of the possibility. Meanwhile the
book inevitably adds up two and two and comes up with five, seeming to
conclude that reincarnation is real. Clearly memories from past
lifetimes can be a valid experience, but if they prove reincarnation is
another matter, what they do prove is the mind's ability to view
different contexts in the hologram of space and time, not limited to the
apparent lifetime we are then experiencing.
Having said that, the detail to which this little boy, James Leiniger, experienced these things was quite amazing, and the book is very much worth reading. There was also a Prime Time interview with the parents posted on their website. My favorite line from the book may well be when the father said to his young son that he loves him, and the son says: "Of course daddy, that's why I picked you." So when did he pick his parents the bewildered father asks: "When you were in the pink hotel in Hawaii." The fathers memory then zooms back to a time spent with his wife in Hawaii, about five weeks prior to the time of conception of his son.
The holographic model of time and space which the Course implicitly espouses, and which is at least implied by the quantum physical model, suggests another way of looking at this. The mental activity of the separated mind simply consists of reviewing a past gone by in the present, so that it's not only the notion of past life memories, which represent in a way reviewing a past experience, which in turn can preoccupy us in the present. Our entire life experience is like this, for the world never exists in the present, hence the Course's dictum that: "There is no world!" ♠
In the book, the research of the parents ends up being useful to young James Leiniger to let go of the past and move on with his life, so they were extremely helpful to him by not suppressing or denying his experiences, as a result of which he was able to deal with the past and let it go. The more common outcome would have been to suppress the experience, and staying stuck in it for a long time. In terms of the Course, this is an example of the miracle, as follows:
Having said that, the detail to which this little boy, James Leiniger, experienced these things was quite amazing, and the book is very much worth reading. There was also a Prime Time interview with the parents posted on their website. My favorite line from the book may well be when the father said to his young son that he loves him, and the son says: "Of course daddy, that's why I picked you." So when did he pick his parents the bewildered father asks: "When you were in the pink hotel in Hawaii." The fathers memory then zooms back to a time spent with his wife in Hawaii, about five weeks prior to the time of conception of his son.
The holographic model of time and space which the Course implicitly espouses, and which is at least implied by the quantum physical model, suggests another way of looking at this. The mental activity of the separated mind simply consists of reviewing a past gone by in the present, so that it's not only the notion of past life memories, which represent in a way reviewing a past experience, which in turn can preoccupy us in the present. Our entire life experience is like this, for the world never exists in the present, hence the Course's dictum that: "There is no world!" ♠
There is no world apart from what you wish, and herein lies your
ultimate release. Change but your mind on what you want to see, and all
the world must change accordingly. Ideas leave not their source. This
central theme is often stated in the text, and must be borne in mind if
you would understand the lesson for today. It is not pride which tells
you that you made the world you see, and that it changes as you change
your mind.
But it is pride
that argues you have come into a world quite separate from yourself,
impervious to what you think, and quite apart from what you chance to
think it is. There is no world! This is the central thought the course
attempts to teach. Not everyone is ready to accept it, and each one must
go as far as he can let himself be led along the road to truth. He will
return and go still farther, or perhaps step back a while and then
return again. (ACIM:W-132.5,6)
The same theme comes up in Logion 52,
of the Thomas Gospel, in which Jesus points out to the apostles that
they are trying in vain to understand him from the past, whereby they
fail to be present with Jesus, and joining with him in the now. Although
it is not explained in so many words, the implication here is evidently
the same, namely that this is our human condition as children from the
ego, that we fail to recognize Jesus, because we are judging based on
the past, and so we are repeating the past in the present, and thus
keeping the present safely outdoors, outside of the framework of reality
which we are prepared to accept.In the book, the research of the parents ends up being useful to young James Leiniger to let go of the past and move on with his life, so they were extremely helpful to him by not suppressing or denying his experiences, as a result of which he was able to deal with the past and let it go. The more common outcome would have been to suppress the experience, and staying stuck in it for a long time. In terms of the Course, this is an example of the miracle, as follows:
Miracles are
both beginnings and endings, and so they alter the temporal order. 2
They are always affirmations of rebirth, which seem to go back but
really go forward. 3 They undo the past in the present, and thus release
the future. (ACIM:T-1/I.13)
Logion 22 in Mark
This one gets really interesting... here we see full scale level confusion at work.
Logion 22 in the Pursah rendering (Gary Renard, Your Immortal Reality) reads as follows:
It should be noted that Pursah leaves off some material as unauthentic, which Davies goes on to analyze, particular the precursor clauses to Mark 9:43-8, about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin etc. which is a section which in and of itself has resulted in a lot of suffering and misconceptions.
As per usual I'm following Stevan Davies' article on Mark's Use of the Thomas Gospel, Part I , but skipping the sections which Pursah deems spurious anyhow. Next is the following well known passage:
Mark 10:2-9:
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
As we can appreciate immediately this has been altered almost beyond recognition, and it is broadly reflective of the transition from Jesus to Paul and Peter, etc., namely an abstract teaching about the healing of duality in the mind, as the precondition for entering the Kingdom, here becomes applied to relationships in the world, and a moralistic teaching, directed at behavior in the world, which is not where Jesus' original teaching was focused at all. Rather, our special relationships in the world, with people, places, and things are the ego's substitute for the Holy Relationship, with our true self, the Christ in us. Jesus, rather than playing traffic cop in the world, is asking the apostles to follow him, out of this world, to his Kingdom not of this world, which is the Real World (in terminology of A Course in Miracles) which we find by living the Holy Relationship. To thine own self be true, as Shakespeare put it. That is what God has joined together, and which we cannot separate, although we do our best to lose ourselves in the world through special relationships.
Finally, an earlier part from the Nag Hammadi version which was also used again in Mark (10:13-16) is again left out by Pursah, apparently on the grounds that she cannot vouch for the authenticity of it, so it may well be another later addition, and I'll skip consideration of it here.
The bottom line is that in the later treatment of this saying we see the transition from a very abstract non-dualistic statement, which in A Course in Miracles we would consider a "level one" statement to a very definite "level two" statement which broadly acknowledges and reinforces some very plainly dualistic concepts, beginning with relationship outside of ourselves.
Logion 22 in the Pursah rendering (Gary Renard, Your Immortal Reality) reads as follows:
When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and want you make male and female into a single one, so the male will not be male and the female will not be female... then you will enter the Kingdom.
In more modern wording we could say: if we heal our dualistic perception, we awaken from the dream, awaken to the reality of who we really are in truth, namely spirit.It should be noted that Pursah leaves off some material as unauthentic, which Davies goes on to analyze, particular the precursor clauses to Mark 9:43-8, about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin etc. which is a section which in and of itself has resulted in a lot of suffering and misconceptions.
As per usual I'm following Stevan Davies' article on Mark's Use of the Thomas Gospel, Part I , but skipping the sections which Pursah deems spurious anyhow. Next is the following well known passage:
Mark 10:2-9:
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
As we can appreciate immediately this has been altered almost beyond recognition, and it is broadly reflective of the transition from Jesus to Paul and Peter, etc., namely an abstract teaching about the healing of duality in the mind, as the precondition for entering the Kingdom, here becomes applied to relationships in the world, and a moralistic teaching, directed at behavior in the world, which is not where Jesus' original teaching was focused at all. Rather, our special relationships in the world, with people, places, and things are the ego's substitute for the Holy Relationship, with our true self, the Christ in us. Jesus, rather than playing traffic cop in the world, is asking the apostles to follow him, out of this world, to his Kingdom not of this world, which is the Real World (in terminology of A Course in Miracles) which we find by living the Holy Relationship. To thine own self be true, as Shakespeare put it. That is what God has joined together, and which we cannot separate, although we do our best to lose ourselves in the world through special relationships.
Finally, an earlier part from the Nag Hammadi version which was also used again in Mark (10:13-16) is again left out by Pursah, apparently on the grounds that she cannot vouch for the authenticity of it, so it may well be another later addition, and I'll skip consideration of it here.
The bottom line is that in the later treatment of this saying we see the transition from a very abstract non-dualistic statement, which in A Course in Miracles we would consider a "level one" statement to a very definite "level two" statement which broadly acknowledges and reinforces some very plainly dualistic concepts, beginning with relationship outside of ourselves.
Do We Want the Problem or the Solution?
Duh, you think, of course I want the solution. Not so fast. Our ego system is a lot craftier than that, and as kids instinctively know, but frustrated parents often ignore, it pays to observe what we do do, and not obfuscate matters by paying attention to what we say we do. And what we do do is to hang on to the problem like a dog to a bone. Byron Katie is demonstrating with her work, The Work. In A Course in Miracles, it is expressed as follows:
Accordingly, my point in demonstrating this process of the reconstruction of Jesus in the transition from the sayings in Thomas (his actual teachings) to the story of the narrative gospels (somebody else's teachings about him), based on the analysis by Stevan Davies, is not to demonstrate that Mark (or anybody) got it wrong. The more important point is to see it as a mirror, and understand that we all get it wrong all the time, and the way he was misconstrued then, is an example of how we misconstrue him today. The joke in Course circles was often that we want Jesus to find us parking spaces, when we get to the workshop. In other words, we want to make the problem good and real, according to the way we have set up our lives, and then ask him to fix it. We completely ignore the fact that we created the problem in the first place and that the purpose of the problem is to keep him safely outside our doors, and our ego firmly in charge. We absolutely insist that instead of listening to him, we are in charge of defining the problem, and then telling him to fix it, as if he were a car mechanic. This is the process we are watching as it unfolds, when we follow the metamorphosis from Jesus the teacher, as he speaks to us in the Thomas gospel, to Jesus the Christian savior, as he is portrayed in the Pauline culture which became Christianity. All the narrative gospels were written after Paul started his preaching and writing, interpreting Jesus in his own way. And now we can understand why.
Much like Gary Renard, I like sometimes to try and shock people into this recognition by using as a point of departure the notion that Jesus was not a Christian. Then you can explain it historically, but few people realize the meaning of it. However when you see the examples I'm discussing here recently (and which I'll continue), then you begin to realize just how profound the change is. It is the transition from Jesus the Teacher of the way out of Hell, who asks us to take responsibility for our lives, and follow him, to Jesus-as-Santa-Claus, the savior who, through vicarious salvation makes it all-right, and meanwhile we don't have to do anything, except believe that it's so. That's the Maitreya role, and anything along those lines sees the problem and the solution to it outside of ourselves, so we get to have our cake and eat it too.
Seek not outside yourself. For it will fail, and you will weep each time an idol falls. Heaven cannot be found where it is not, and there can be no peace excepting there. Each idol that you worship when God calls will never answer in His place. There is no other answer you can substitute, and find the happiness His answer brings. Seek not outside yourself. For all your pain comes simply from a futile search for what you want, insisting where it must be found. What if it is not there? Do you prefer that you be right or happy? Be you glad that you are told where happiness abides, and seek no longer elsewhere. You will fail. But it is given you to know the truth, and not to seek for it outside yourself. (ACIM:T-29.VII.1)
And we all think, when we first read this, that of course we'd rather be happy, and we are thus fooling ourselves, with the PR version of our own lives. As Byron Katie also asks, who would we be without our story? So the bottom line is that our ego identity is all wrapped up in the tale of woe which is our life, and we hang on to the problem like a dog to a bone, and no way do we prefer to be happy, all our protestations to the contrary. Everything we do is geared to validating our ego-identity. This is why Jesus was not understood 2,000 years ago. And the next point is to observe that it is completely natural that we would not understand him. Now if you've followed some of the examples of how the world reconstructed Jesus' identity in adapting the simple sayings of the Thomas gospel, and making something else out of them, then you begin to fathom the tremendous psychological resistance to accepting what Jesus was saying. For what our ego hears is that his "Kingdom not of this world" implies that we were wrong, and he was right. No way were we going to have that. Not then, not now. That's being honest about it.Accordingly, my point in demonstrating this process of the reconstruction of Jesus in the transition from the sayings in Thomas (his actual teachings) to the story of the narrative gospels (somebody else's teachings about him), based on the analysis by Stevan Davies, is not to demonstrate that Mark (or anybody) got it wrong. The more important point is to see it as a mirror, and understand that we all get it wrong all the time, and the way he was misconstrued then, is an example of how we misconstrue him today. The joke in Course circles was often that we want Jesus to find us parking spaces, when we get to the workshop. In other words, we want to make the problem good and real, according to the way we have set up our lives, and then ask him to fix it. We completely ignore the fact that we created the problem in the first place and that the purpose of the problem is to keep him safely outside our doors, and our ego firmly in charge. We absolutely insist that instead of listening to him, we are in charge of defining the problem, and then telling him to fix it, as if he were a car mechanic. This is the process we are watching as it unfolds, when we follow the metamorphosis from Jesus the teacher, as he speaks to us in the Thomas gospel, to Jesus the Christian savior, as he is portrayed in the Pauline culture which became Christianity. All the narrative gospels were written after Paul started his preaching and writing, interpreting Jesus in his own way. And now we can understand why.
Much like Gary Renard, I like sometimes to try and shock people into this recognition by using as a point of departure the notion that Jesus was not a Christian. Then you can explain it historically, but few people realize the meaning of it. However when you see the examples I'm discussing here recently (and which I'll continue), then you begin to realize just how profound the change is. It is the transition from Jesus the Teacher of the way out of Hell, who asks us to take responsibility for our lives, and follow him, to Jesus-as-Santa-Claus, the savior who, through vicarious salvation makes it all-right, and meanwhile we don't have to do anything, except believe that it's so. That's the Maitreya role, and anything along those lines sees the problem and the solution to it outside of ourselves, so we get to have our cake and eat it too.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Logion 13 and Mark 8:27-33
The following is again based on Stevan Davies' discussion of Mark's use of the Gospel of Thomas, Part I, and part of my ongoing exploration on how the nature of Jesus's teachings was altered in the transition from the simple sayings of Thomas to the narrative gospels which began to appear on the scene 10, 15 and 20 years later.
Logion 13 is fascinating, even without the additions Pursah offers to it in The Disappearance of the Universe, in which she proposes what the three things were - which of course the whole world has been guessing at ever since the text was discovered. Here is the text in the Pursah rendering from Your Immortal Reality:
Mark, 8:27-33 (NIV):
With the availability of the Course and the deeper psychological understanding which it fosters, we can now also increasingly understand why it is that we do resist the message so much, namely because our ego has us convinced that accepting the atonement will be the end of us, when the truth is that it would be the end of the ego, not of us as who we are in truth -- namely spirit. In other words the risk is that we would be happy, instead of miserably hanging on to the ego.
The original teaching of Logion 13 makes that simple point, which in the story Thomas is apparently beginning to appreciate, namely that the world really is not ready to hear Jesus's message, nor will it ever be, by definition, based on the understanding that the world was made as an attack on God, being the embodiment of the ego-thought of separation from God. Jesus's message, or the atonement, after all is the message that the separation did not happen, so neither the ego, nor the world it projects are real. The only thing that is real and eternal is the love of God, and what keeps it out of awareness is our identification with the ego-self, the false self, the persona, and that is how our ego keeps us wrapped around the axle, fearing we will perish when we accept the atonement for ourselves, when instead it is the ego which will perish, and which we are NOT, in spite of its best efforts to convince us otherwise.
Thus the real issue is not that the scribes and Pharizees, or whoever, out in the world, is not accepting "Jesus," but rather the other way around, that we don't take responsibility for the fact that we don't accept him, while the Course is really showing us the mechanisms why we don't and helps us to remove the cloaking of the ego, and learn to look at its seething snake pit of hatred with the love of Jesus beside us, so that ultimately we should be able to forgive ourselves for what the Course calls the "tiny, mad, idea" of the separation, and laugh it all away with Jesus, as he also suggests in the Course. The critical passage is:
Logion 13 is fascinating, even without the additions Pursah offers to it in The Disappearance of the Universe, in which she proposes what the three things were - which of course the whole world has been guessing at ever since the text was discovered. Here is the text in the Pursah rendering from Your Immortal Reality:
J said to the disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I'm like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are just like an angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wisdom teacher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him, "What did J say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one fo the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and consume you."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are just like an angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wisdom teacher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him, "What did J say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one fo the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and consume you."
Mark, 8:27-33 (NIV):
Peter's Confession of Christ
27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."
29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[a]"
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."
29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[a]"
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
Jesus Predicts His Death
31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
Again, we can only be amazed at the difference, as Jesus becomes domesticated through the subsequent editing of the tradition about him (instead of: of him). For one thing, of course in the context of the emerging orthodoxy, it is Peter who gives the winning answer, though up to that point the gist of the story might be somewhat comparable with the Thomas version, namely that the world is not ready (by definition) to hear Jesus's teachings of a Kingdom not of this world. However the further framing of the story in the Markan context again hijacks the pure teaching, and frames it now in the Christian mold where the upcoming death of Jesus is of the essence, and his presumed suffering beginning to be construed as an important sacrifice ordained by God, which is very, very different from the simple image which is evoked by the notion of simply saying that the world is not ready to hear this message. Peter's recognition of Jesus as "the Christ," likewise serves the Christian purpose of validating Jesus as special, and a "savior," when the point of his teaching was exactly the other way around. The section headings of the NIV reinforce this Christian theological slant even more.31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
With the availability of the Course and the deeper psychological understanding which it fosters, we can now also increasingly understand why it is that we do resist the message so much, namely because our ego has us convinced that accepting the atonement will be the end of us, when the truth is that it would be the end of the ego, not of us as who we are in truth -- namely spirit. In other words the risk is that we would be happy, instead of miserably hanging on to the ego.
The original teaching of Logion 13 makes that simple point, which in the story Thomas is apparently beginning to appreciate, namely that the world really is not ready to hear Jesus's message, nor will it ever be, by definition, based on the understanding that the world was made as an attack on God, being the embodiment of the ego-thought of separation from God. Jesus's message, or the atonement, after all is the message that the separation did not happen, so neither the ego, nor the world it projects are real. The only thing that is real and eternal is the love of God, and what keeps it out of awareness is our identification with the ego-self, the false self, the persona, and that is how our ego keeps us wrapped around the axle, fearing we will perish when we accept the atonement for ourselves, when instead it is the ego which will perish, and which we are NOT, in spite of its best efforts to convince us otherwise.
Thus the real issue is not that the scribes and Pharizees, or whoever, out in the world, is not accepting "Jesus," but rather the other way around, that we don't take responsibility for the fact that we don't accept him, while the Course is really showing us the mechanisms why we don't and helps us to remove the cloaking of the ego, and learn to look at its seething snake pit of hatred with the love of Jesus beside us, so that ultimately we should be able to forgive ourselves for what the Course calls the "tiny, mad, idea" of the separation, and laugh it all away with Jesus, as he also suggests in the Course. The critical passage is:
Let us return the dream he gave away unto the dreamer, who perceives the dream as separate from himself and done to him. Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which the Son of God remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects. Together, we can laugh them both away, and understand that time cannot intrude upon eternity. It is a joke to think that time can come to circumvent eternity, which means there is no time. (ACIM:T-27.VIII.6)
Sunday, February 1, 2009
NH Logion 65 & PGoTh Logion 66, Mark 12:1-12
The following material relates to an article of Stevan Davies, Mark's Use of the Gospel of Thomas.
I'm taking Logion 65 (rejected by Pursah) from the Marvin Meyer edition, where it reads as follows:
Logion 66 by itself as it is stated in PGoth (and it is a quotation of Psalm 118:22), outside of this context, seems to have a very clear meaning, being the equivalent of the notion from the Course that the ego always speaks first, and is always wrong, and more generally that the thought systems of the ego and the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive. The use of this quoted material in the Markan passage still indicates a reversal, but the overall framing now puts it in the context of Jesus offending the chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders who are now scheming to "get him" except they are temporarily afraid of the law, and it seems to indicate that he will be vindicated. So now the emphasis is shifting to a narrow application within the story of Jesus's rejection, and it seems to be construed as if he's threatening those listeners to the parable. In short, the same quote, which in the abstract would lead us to hear one thing, is now narrowly construed in a very tendentious way.
This is literally the first example from the material Stevan Davies adduces in his research of this topic, and immediately we begin to appreciate what a difference the redaction by the later gospel writers makes, and behind them again is always the influence of Paul, whose theological framing of the meaning of Jesus is the seminal influence on all of them, and laid the groundwork for Christianity as one very particular way of seeing Jesus. Historically it may have become the dominant one, but nevertheless it is not the only way of seeing him and his ministry. The collection of books in the New Testament was effectively chosen to give one particular theological line of thought prominence, and eliminate at least those things which were too blatantly contradictory.
I'm taking Logion 65 (rejected by Pursah) from the Marvin Meyer edition, where it reads as follows:
He said, "A [...] person owned a vineyard and rented it to some farmers, so that they might work it and he might collect its produce from them. He sent his servants so that the farmers might give the servant the produce of the vineyard. They seized, beat, and almost killed his servant, and the servant returned and told his master. His master said, 'Perhaps he did not know them.' He sent another servant, and the farmers beat that one as well. Then the master sent his son and said, 'Perhaps they will show my sons some respect.' Since the farmers knew that he was the heir to the vineyard, they seized him and killed him. Whoever has ears should hear.
and Logion 66 from our trusted Pursah edition:J said: "Show me the stone that the builders rejected. That is the keystone."
and here is the Markan passage, Mk 12:1-12, from the NIV:1 He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. 6 "He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.'
7 "But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
9 "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven't you read this scripture:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone[a];
11 the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'[b]?"
12 Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.
I do want to point out that Pursah evidently rejects Logion 65 altogether, and therefore classifies it as a later addition, the authenticity of which she cannot vouch for. As a first instance, it is quite clear how the rendering in Mark, which is the oldest of the canonical Gospels, but still 10-20 years later than the Thomas gospel, immediately weaves these themes into something else than they meant taken in isolation, and then I'm momentarily leaving aside the question of the authenticity of Logion 65 by Pursah. 7 "But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
9 "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven't you read this scripture:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone[a];
11 the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'[b]?"
12 Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.
Logion 66 by itself as it is stated in PGoth (and it is a quotation of Psalm 118:22), outside of this context, seems to have a very clear meaning, being the equivalent of the notion from the Course that the ego always speaks first, and is always wrong, and more generally that the thought systems of the ego and the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive. The use of this quoted material in the Markan passage still indicates a reversal, but the overall framing now puts it in the context of Jesus offending the chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders who are now scheming to "get him" except they are temporarily afraid of the law, and it seems to indicate that he will be vindicated. So now the emphasis is shifting to a narrow application within the story of Jesus's rejection, and it seems to be construed as if he's threatening those listeners to the parable. In short, the same quote, which in the abstract would lead us to hear one thing, is now narrowly construed in a very tendentious way.
This is literally the first example from the material Stevan Davies adduces in his research of this topic, and immediately we begin to appreciate what a difference the redaction by the later gospel writers makes, and behind them again is always the influence of Paul, whose theological framing of the meaning of Jesus is the seminal influence on all of them, and laid the groundwork for Christianity as one very particular way of seeing Jesus. Historically it may have become the dominant one, but nevertheless it is not the only way of seeing him and his ministry. The collection of books in the New Testament was effectively chosen to give one particular theological line of thought prominence, and eliminate at least those things which were too blatantly contradictory.