The Bastards Don't Deserve It... Forgiveness that Is.

That is Gary Renard's frequent joke, and an important one, for just like Logion 13, it is an important lesson in why Yeshua's teachings are not very popular in the world. Never have been. We want to hang on to our identity, and to do so we must maintain conflict, for personality and individuality are thoughts of hate, that must be fed by maintaining a suitable list of enemies. And so the justification of our righteous anger comes so natural, that we really get blindsided time and again, by those seemingly so honest feeling that it is impossible to forgive, and we do not want to know that we're only killing ourselves with it, that it is the choice for the crucifxion. Hence the Course also says:

Do not make the pathetic error of "clinging to the old rugged cross." The only message of the crucifixion is that you can overcome the cross. Until then you are free to crucify yourself as often as you choose. This is not the gospel I intended to offer you. We have another journey to undertake, and if you will read these lessons carefully they will help prepare you to undertake it. (ACIM:T-4-in.3:7-11)

Forgiveness completely flies in the face of our justified anger, and that is also why the temptation is so great to want to improve on ACIM, and become an "important teacher," rather than learning it yourself, and teaching by learning the Navajo way. The only way to do it is to do it. That is the shortcut (with thanks to Ken Wapnick for that remark). In short the way to be an ACIM teacher in reality is to know you don't matter at all, and it's all a comedy.

Forgiveness, on the other hand, is still, and quietly does nothing. It offends no aspect of reality, nor seeks to twist it to appearances it likes. It merely looks, and waits, and judges not. He who would not forgive must judge, for he must justify his failure to forgive. But he who would forgive himself must learn to welcome truth exactly as it is. (ACIM:T-pII.1.4)

As a little side note, also the speeches of Dutch Queen Juliana in 1952, including when she spoke to the American congress, on her interest in a way out of conflict on a global level, in the concept of the Third Way, which was on her mind in those days, is an example of how the message of peace, the mere thought of it, is anathema to the world. In her case, it would appear that quite possibly her husband, Prince Bernhard, even hatched a plot to have her dethroned, and put his daughter Beatrix on the throne (then just turned 18), all to the greater glory of Lockheed and mutually assured destruction. He of course more than anyone seems to have turned Holland into a banana republic, or rather, an armsdealing republic. It is a story that has not yet been fully told, but some day it will, and it makes for a nice reflection of what the world does really believe in, and why it is the Course says, that the world was made as an attack on God.

The world was made as an attack on God. It symbolizes fear. And what is fear except love's absence? Thus the world was meant to be a place where God could enter not, and where His Son could be apart from Him. Here was perception born, for knowledge could not cause such insane thoughts. But eyes deceive, and ears hear falsely. Now mistakes become quite possible, for certainty has gone. (ACIM:W-pII.3.2)

And again this ties in closely to another theme that runs through the Thomas gospel materials, namely the notion that these are the teachings which Jesus dispenses privately, he did then, and he does now. For only in the forgiveness moments, in the miracle, do we individually become teachable because it means we surrendered our judgment, and so we listen for the first time in a long time. And then quickly we forget it again, because we are deadly afraid of it. So it has nothing to do with the teachings being secret, or Jesus secretive, but it has everything to do that we remain outsiders of the mystery of forgiveness unless and until we practice it, and therein lies the meeting with the Master, that Internal Teacher, who is available to us whenever we really ask his Help, in complete surrender of our own judgment, and constant urge to be right and know better.

Role Play, Empathy

I talked about role play in my last post, but there are many ways that we can engage in this, and you don't always have to act it out. One of the simple ways is empathy, truly allowing yourself to be in someone else's shoes, which I assure you will change your outlook on other people, and make you a lot less judgmental. And simply, we also enrich our experience. For one thing I had this strong feeling with Plato, in the times when I was actively reading him, it was as if I was at times transported to Athens to his academy, and of course many themes that are discussed in the dialogues are truly perennial questions of human life.

One of the fascinating exercises in this regard for me has always been to empathize in this fashion with the twelve apostles, being around Jesus. Once you break the mold of the dominant Christian interpretation of the New Testament, and bypass the judgment of many of the apocryphal materials as somehow irrelevant, and you just begin to read for yourself, I think the one issue that stands out the most is how the apostles were attracted to Jesus and his teachings, but in truth none of them understood him completely. This makes complete sense also with the comments that Gary Renard's teachers make in his books, namely the apostles mostly experienced another twenty or so lifetimes prior to enlightenment. And look at the stories, these guys are stumbling around, mostly not getting what Jesus is saying, yet listen again and again and again, and somehow in  their own way after he dies, they seem to know that their time with him was their greatest time ever, and it changed their lives.

These stories are no different from e.g. the relationship of Krishnamurti with the people around him. Nobody got him either. And of course it is always like that, which is why it's true as so many people have said that if Jesus just showed up one day, he would not be recognized, and possibly locked up in an asylum. And mentally we lock him up all the time. As long as we make the crucifixion the main event, in lieu of the resurrection, we in effect confine him to the historical role of the body that played him two thousand years ago in Palestine. If however the resurrection is the main event, then he is still with us now, (and we're still not getting what he says). We want most of all for this world to be good and real, and we don't really have ears for his Kingdom not of this world, that is, not until we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And maybe just maybe, then we tune in to him, and like the apostles, we may not know what to make of him, but we know something sounds damned good and convincing.

A Course in Miracles makes it clear why we eventually listen. The point it makes is that even at the worst of times we are never quite one hundred percent crazy, for the mind that was in him is also in us, and one day we'll start paying attention to that little spark. Jesus' teaching of forgiveness is the method to allow that little spark to grow, until it can shine away the dark. When first we recognize it, a little child is born in us, and the more we can refrain from telling it who it is, but listen to it as it is teaching us, the better off we will be. And so we will humbly empathize with the apostles, who were only dimly getting who Jesus was, but they hung in there, for they did not doubt he spoke the truth. Now it is also no longer a problem that there are so many versions and stories about him, which contradict each other on many points. Not one of them has the whole story, they all merely reported it as best they could. Logion 13 in the Thomas gospel is very cute on this point, for it raises the issue loud and clear that the world is not ready to hear what Jesus really has to say. That is as true now as it was then. The only one who maybe got what Jesus was saying, Mary Magdalene, his wife, seems to disappear from the scene after playing her role as "the apostle to the apostles." The boys ignore her, and start founding religions, and schools, while she, the only one who maybe did get it, seems to wander off and not leave much of a trail. And as always the religions accomplish only one thing, namely we stop listening to the teacher, since we end up thinking we already know, so now we're telling him what he told us, instead of listening to him. Buddhist tradition has a wise saying about this: "What's known as the teachings of the Buddha are not the teachings of the Buddha." Realizing this, you leave yourself a chance to actually listen when you finally do meet the Buddha. By the same token, if we identify with the apostles in their failure to understand Jesus fully, perhaps we would keep our ears open as well. It might inspire some humility to actually listen. To me, that's the value of those stories. In short, this was not "50 way to leave your lover," but "12 ways to misunderstand Jesus," and, if we empathize with the characters, we may understand our own resistance to understanding what Jesus is talking about, and that is surely the beginning of wisdom.

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:

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:

    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.

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:

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."

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.

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.
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)

Seventy (One) or One Hundred Fourteen?

That's the difference between the Pursah version, and the Nag Hammadi text. Or to be precise, it's really 71 vs 114, since 6 & 14 are contracted into one saying in the Pursah version, and so her selection of 70 corresponds to 71 one sayings in the Nag Hammadi text. Thus, counting purely the number of sayings in the Pursah version, it covers just 62% of the material. She also adds substantial material to Logion 13 (on page 81 in DU), so that it seems fairly justifiable to condider her version to equate to a good two thirds of the Nag Hammadi version. Understandably however, questions do come up from people about the justification for Pursah's selection.

We have only the statements of Pursah to fall back on, which really boil down to the fact that she claims there was too much corruption in the other sayings. Historically that is a credible suggestion, except that the extant materials make it very hard to figure out what such a kernel might have been, though it would seem that the most "accepted" belief currently is that indeed the Thomas Gospel would have existed in some recognizable form within 20 years after the crucifixion, and many would assume that this was not necessarily the full collection as we know it now from the Nag Hammadi text. And so it remains that we have really only Pursah's testimony as her past-life recollection that authenticates her particular selection. The reader either accepts that or not, that is a personal decision, but some of Pursah's edits and comments seem highly credible. In particular the contraction of 6 & 14 has that "Why didn't I think of that? " feel to it.

Along with that, it seems to me Pursah is not rejecting every word in the other sayings, which she excludes from her collection, but on the whole she indicates, as reported in YIR on page 160, that "the other 44" were later additions. Again that does not state that pieces of them might not contain authentic words etc., her point seems to be only that the 70 as provided by her are totally solid, and the other 44 just were not part of the original collection, the "kernel," and are thus under suspicion of having too much corruption in them. In a more general sense she has indicated in DU, that once you truly understand Jesus's thought system it is relatively straightforward to figure out which ones are authentic and which ones are not. Some people may wish to try their hand at sorting out the chaff from the wheat for the other 44, but that is likely to end up with endless bickering, that is not of interest for the student who is simply interested in understanding Jesus better.

It is these practical considerations which also led me to stick with just the Pursah collection for my book, and not to overly emphasize the NH version, there are already too many books on that one, and they seem to keep coming. This collection in the Pursah version grows on you the more you work with it, exactly because of its coherent nature.