Those with the strength of God in their awareness could never think of battle. What could they gain but loss of their perfection? For everything fought for on the battleground is of the body; something it seems to offer or to own. No one who knows that he has everything could seek for limitation, nor could he value the body's offerings. The senselessness of conquest is quite apparent from the quiet sphere above the battleground. What can conflict with everything? And what is there that offers less, yet could be wanted more? Who with the Love of God upholding him could find the choice of miracles or murder hard to make? (ACIM:T-23.IV.9)
To get into the fight, means to fully identify with the dream role, i.e. choosing to be asleep. With at least the dawning of an awareness that I'm not my body, that I'm not the role, eventually I can actually play it even better, because I'm no longer so hung up on making it a success, but rather I'm accepting it as my next classroom where I can learn that this is not what I am. That is surely what it means to "follow Jesus," to a "Kingdom not of this world," for in choosing forgiveness, I stop justifying my wrong minded choices, and while I still may make them for a while, they gradually no longer have the power over me that they once had. Very deliberately, the Course states its objective as the achievement of peace of mind, not enlightenment. What the Course is for, is to direct our steps in the right direction, so that like with the old Greek saying that the way to the top of Mt. Olympus is, to make sure every step you take is in that direction, this is what the Course helps us do, to get on the road to Peace. Enlightenment then, is to some time realize that there's nobody there to be enlightened, because we're not even here, that's just a dream we were having. Moreover, as the Course also points out and we are destined to realize sooner or later, we are the dreamer of the dream, and once that sinks in, how could you ever be afraid of all the figures in the dream, because you dreamed them, or be concerned at all for the hero of the dream, once you realize you dreamed him/her too?
Showing posts with label Logion 42. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logion 42. Show all posts
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Logion 42 and Enlightenment
Logion 42, "Be passersby," although it is in the middle of the collection may be the punch line of the entire Thomas Gospel. For to learn the view from "above the battleground" as the Course calls it, is to wake up from the dream.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Be Passersby Says Logion 42
I was reminded of this again today, because of some reflections by my friend Annelies, who wrote something on her (Dutch) blog about a realization of how simple things really are. More and more it becomes evident that the only human mistake is to take ourselves too seriously, or rather seriously at all, instead of just cracking ourselves up, which would resolve things soon enough. So the admonition "Be passersby" ends up being the perfect antidote to all that. Nite all.
Monday, March 9, 2009
All the Dumb Questions
Once when Krishnamurti was asked by a reporter what he would think of when the same question was asked for the umpteenth time, he said "tennis." This was late in his life, he might have been ninety at the time. By this time also he felt at times at least, that for all his sixty years of teaching, and God only knows how many books, no one or nearly no one had ever truly understood him. Dr. Helen Schucman, who was the scribe of A Course in Miracles had similar feelings at the end of her life. The Thomas Gospel talks about "hidden sayings" (Logion 1). None of that is elitism, though it has often been misinterpreted in that kind of light. The simple truth is that very few people really want to be bothered with the wisdom of the ages. Too much hassle. As the Romans knew, the people want bread and games (panem et circenses). Don't bother me with the Truth. No need today.
In the Gospels the scene at the end of Mark, when Mary Magdalene tells the other apostles of the resurrection, is priceless. The arguments that followed are equally telling, including the endless disputes of whether the resurrection was of the mind or of the body. What became Christianity adopted the latter position, though some other schools toyed around fairly seriously with the notion that the resurrection was of the mind. Certainly with the advent of A Course in Miracles it could not be clearer that this is the only way that the story makes any sense at all. But again these are concepts which we don't know right away what to do with, since on the face of it we seem to be a body that has a mind, whereas in the Context of such teachings as A Course in Miracles, it is clear that we are a mind projecting a body, and watching the experience of "My life," which is one of many thousands we could have ordered from Netflix, or picked up at Blockbusters. The main thing is we get so engrossed while watching, and we identify with the hero of the story, we end up completely believing we are him or her, oblivious to any other way of looking at the story. The Course however does tell us to learn to look at things from Above the Battleground:
In short, whenever you get sick and tired of being sick and tired, you may remember this kind of advice. In Logion 42 of the Thomas Gospel Jesus expresses the same idea with fewer words: "Be passersby." Learn to watch what you're doing, observe it, don't identify with it and lose yourself, for that leads you to the way out.
It is only when we don't really like the story any more (our own damn fault for taking out a tragedy, when we could also have picked a comedy for the same price), that we begin to look at things a different way. And then when we find a teacher, like Jesus, Krishnamurti, or the Buddha, who hangs out not where the crouds are, but "in the wilderness," or "the desert" etc. this means we're now turning away for a moment of our ego's bread and games, and we immediately start having questions. This is what I read, when I look at the stories of the apostles, when I read the transcripts from Krishnamurti workshops/lectures, when I listen to tapes of workshops of the foundation for A Course in Miracles. These people are all asking all the questions that we all want to ask. Sometimes we haven't realized it yet, but if we haven't yet, we will realize at a later point that we're asking a question we heard somebody ask at a workshop, etc. Ultimately what will answer the questions however, is if we do so through our own experience, as long as we stay stuck in answering questions, we are really throwing up roadblocks against the experience that part of us wants, and part of us is deadly afraid of. Ultimately this is the type of reasoning which Jesus offers in ACIM: if you're in doubt if this is for you or not, try it for a while, and see if you like it. The great big risk is that you might feel more peaceful. Another important clue is in Logion 108 from Thomas, "Whosoever drinks form my mouth shall become like me. I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to that person." As usual this should not be read literally but figuratively. It is about sharing his experience, and becoming one with him on an experiential level, for only the experience will tell us where words fall short. It is not about the words, it is about a willingness to have the experience, and that means giving up on the ego's next ride (because we already know to expect the same old result from the same old actions), and following him in deed, not in word, and the means for that, as they appear in the Course are the practice of his forgiveness practice, which are a way of switching from the way our ego sees the world to the way Jesus sees it. A way to get out of our bad old habits which are making us miserable. And while we are at it we can listen to all the dumb questions, or ask our own dumb questions, which will only fade away when the experience catches up to us and we finally realize what he was talking about. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in Gary Renard's books he is really asking all the dumb questions for us, AND his teachers help him to experience the answers as much as answering him in words, so vicariously through him, we get the point that it is about opening ourselves up to the experience, instead of closing our minds, thinking we have all the answers.
In the Gospels the scene at the end of Mark, when Mary Magdalene tells the other apostles of the resurrection, is priceless. The arguments that followed are equally telling, including the endless disputes of whether the resurrection was of the mind or of the body. What became Christianity adopted the latter position, though some other schools toyed around fairly seriously with the notion that the resurrection was of the mind. Certainly with the advent of A Course in Miracles it could not be clearer that this is the only way that the story makes any sense at all. But again these are concepts which we don't know right away what to do with, since on the face of it we seem to be a body that has a mind, whereas in the Context of such teachings as A Course in Miracles, it is clear that we are a mind projecting a body, and watching the experience of "My life," which is one of many thousands we could have ordered from Netflix, or picked up at Blockbusters. The main thing is we get so engrossed while watching, and we identify with the hero of the story, we end up completely believing we are him or her, oblivious to any other way of looking at the story. The Course however does tell us to learn to look at things from Above the Battleground:
Those with the strength of God in their awareness could never think of battle. What could they gain but loss of their perfection? For everything fought for on the battleground is of the body; something it seems to offer or to own. No one who knows that he has everything could seek for limitation, nor could he value the body's offerings. The senselessness of conquest is quite apparent from the quiet sphere above the battleground. What can conflict with everything? And what is there that offers less, yet could be wanted more? Who with the Love of God upholding him could find the choice of miracles or murder hard to make? (ACIM:T-23.IV.9)
In short, whenever you get sick and tired of being sick and tired, you may remember this kind of advice. In Logion 42 of the Thomas Gospel Jesus expresses the same idea with fewer words: "Be passersby." Learn to watch what you're doing, observe it, don't identify with it and lose yourself, for that leads you to the way out.
It is only when we don't really like the story any more (our own damn fault for taking out a tragedy, when we could also have picked a comedy for the same price), that we begin to look at things a different way. And then when we find a teacher, like Jesus, Krishnamurti, or the Buddha, who hangs out not where the crouds are, but "in the wilderness," or "the desert" etc. this means we're now turning away for a moment of our ego's bread and games, and we immediately start having questions. This is what I read, when I look at the stories of the apostles, when I read the transcripts from Krishnamurti workshops/lectures, when I listen to tapes of workshops of the foundation for A Course in Miracles. These people are all asking all the questions that we all want to ask. Sometimes we haven't realized it yet, but if we haven't yet, we will realize at a later point that we're asking a question we heard somebody ask at a workshop, etc. Ultimately what will answer the questions however, is if we do so through our own experience, as long as we stay stuck in answering questions, we are really throwing up roadblocks against the experience that part of us wants, and part of us is deadly afraid of. Ultimately this is the type of reasoning which Jesus offers in ACIM: if you're in doubt if this is for you or not, try it for a while, and see if you like it. The great big risk is that you might feel more peaceful. Another important clue is in Logion 108 from Thomas, "Whosoever drinks form my mouth shall become like me. I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to that person." As usual this should not be read literally but figuratively. It is about sharing his experience, and becoming one with him on an experiential level, for only the experience will tell us where words fall short. It is not about the words, it is about a willingness to have the experience, and that means giving up on the ego's next ride (because we already know to expect the same old result from the same old actions), and following him in deed, not in word, and the means for that, as they appear in the Course are the practice of his forgiveness practice, which are a way of switching from the way our ego sees the world to the way Jesus sees it. A way to get out of our bad old habits which are making us miserable. And while we are at it we can listen to all the dumb questions, or ask our own dumb questions, which will only fade away when the experience catches up to us and we finally realize what he was talking about. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in Gary Renard's books he is really asking all the dumb questions for us, AND his teachers help him to experience the answers as much as answering him in words, so vicariously through him, we get the point that it is about opening ourselves up to the experience, instead of closing our minds, thinking we have all the answers.
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.
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, November 22, 2008
Nonsensical Logic Isn't
The literature about the Thomas gospel, and therefore the conversations on the topic in general, seems to be full of alternative theories about Jesus and Thomas which make no sense to me at all, the most predominant one being the notion that by one definition or another the Thomas gospel would or should be considered a gnostic document, which it is not. Some helpful reflections could be found in a current book, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category.
The notion of gnosticism in and of itself remains fraught with problems, because it is really a nomenclature for a wide range of religious and spiritual traditions which flourished perhaps in the second and third centuries of the Common Era, but which has roots that reach back well before Jesus. By and large gnosticism was thrown out by the nascent church as heresy, which seemed to be fulminating against the gnostics and to all they could to wipe out the teachings. And to a large degree the best knowledge we have about some of the gnostics is because the church did such a good job of fighting them, very much in line with the psychological notions of the Course that opposition makes the error real. Bisshop Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses dealt with them so effectively that in many cases his work remained the best source of information on many of the gnostic schools. Even in recent times the term has given rise to much confusion, when at one point Elaine Pagels proposed that Paul may have been a gnostic, which is preposterous, and in another case Miachael Allen Williams in his book correctly argues that the whole nomenclature should be abandoned, because it lumps too many dissimilar traditions together. In other words, the term causes more confusion than it breeds understanding. I'll say!
Pertaining to the Thomas Gospel, the first association with gnosticism was because the manuscripts we have are from the 2nd and 4th century of the Common Era, and some of the statements sound so alien to Christian writers, that they thought it must be a heretical document, and courtesy of Bishop Irenaeus, sure enough, it became a case of let's throw it on the heap of "gnosticism," just as well nobody really knows what the term means, and so it becomes an epithet, and it certainly does not mean Christian. So initially the "gnostic" epithet became the knee-jerk defense of Christianity against the authenticity of the Thomas gospel. By now the internal evidence is pretty convincing that this view was not warranted, and that instead the Thomas Gospel predated Paul and the canonical gospels. So now other arguments have to be found to get rid of its perceived authenticity since its rediscovery, and that's how the churches and writes with broadly Christian allegiance have tended to use the term in modern times.
Then there are those who seem to think broadly that since the early Christians did not like the gnostics, and the Thomas material is clearly different from the Christian tradition, therefore they should automatically assume that the Thomas gospel was gnostic, and this should now be seen as something positive. That makes no sense either. What is true is that a few things in the Thomas gospel are evocative of some concepts we know from gnosticism, and some ideas of the early Jesus are well preserved in later gnostic tradition, such as the "Be passersby," of Logion 42, and the notion in the Valentinian school of gnosticism that Jesus was laughing under a tree, and they really crucified somebody else. Even though it borders on a possible misunderstanding, it is certainly an ineresting way of expressing the notion that Jesus was not his body (ergo that we are not our bodies), and truly puts him in the oberver's seat, as a 'passerby.' But the fact that some of his teachings which were ignored by the Christian community, flourished in certain gnostic schools, does not per se make Jesus a gnostics, just as little as he was a Christian for similar reasons: it was invented later. This is true even if some gnostic type thinking was in evidence well before Jesus's time, as in the Wisdom traditions of Judaism, etc.
So this becomes a classic case where the label really has nothing to contribute to the conversation, and in reality becomes an impediment to understanding the Thomas sayings as they should be understood, and without making Jesus into anything that he isn't. So the label - gnostic - in both cases cited above is an obfuscation, and it sullies the very freshness of the Thomas gospel, which first and foremost really remains an invitation to read and hear the sayings of Jesus just like they sounded, and it only takes a little effort to adjust in our imagination to be with him then and there. And realizing how easy that is, makes it also much easier to understand how he is with us here and now.
The notion of gnosticism in and of itself remains fraught with problems, because it is really a nomenclature for a wide range of religious and spiritual traditions which flourished perhaps in the second and third centuries of the Common Era, but which has roots that reach back well before Jesus. By and large gnosticism was thrown out by the nascent church as heresy, which seemed to be fulminating against the gnostics and to all they could to wipe out the teachings. And to a large degree the best knowledge we have about some of the gnostics is because the church did such a good job of fighting them, very much in line with the psychological notions of the Course that opposition makes the error real. Bisshop Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses dealt with them so effectively that in many cases his work remained the best source of information on many of the gnostic schools. Even in recent times the term has given rise to much confusion, when at one point Elaine Pagels proposed that Paul may have been a gnostic, which is preposterous, and in another case Miachael Allen Williams in his book correctly argues that the whole nomenclature should be abandoned, because it lumps too many dissimilar traditions together. In other words, the term causes more confusion than it breeds understanding. I'll say!
Pertaining to the Thomas Gospel, the first association with gnosticism was because the manuscripts we have are from the 2nd and 4th century of the Common Era, and some of the statements sound so alien to Christian writers, that they thought it must be a heretical document, and courtesy of Bishop Irenaeus, sure enough, it became a case of let's throw it on the heap of "gnosticism," just as well nobody really knows what the term means, and so it becomes an epithet, and it certainly does not mean Christian. So initially the "gnostic" epithet became the knee-jerk defense of Christianity against the authenticity of the Thomas gospel. By now the internal evidence is pretty convincing that this view was not warranted, and that instead the Thomas Gospel predated Paul and the canonical gospels. So now other arguments have to be found to get rid of its perceived authenticity since its rediscovery, and that's how the churches and writes with broadly Christian allegiance have tended to use the term in modern times.
Then there are those who seem to think broadly that since the early Christians did not like the gnostics, and the Thomas material is clearly different from the Christian tradition, therefore they should automatically assume that the Thomas gospel was gnostic, and this should now be seen as something positive. That makes no sense either. What is true is that a few things in the Thomas gospel are evocative of some concepts we know from gnosticism, and some ideas of the early Jesus are well preserved in later gnostic tradition, such as the "Be passersby," of Logion 42, and the notion in the Valentinian school of gnosticism that Jesus was laughing under a tree, and they really crucified somebody else. Even though it borders on a possible misunderstanding, it is certainly an ineresting way of expressing the notion that Jesus was not his body (ergo that we are not our bodies), and truly puts him in the oberver's seat, as a 'passerby.' But the fact that some of his teachings which were ignored by the Christian community, flourished in certain gnostic schools, does not per se make Jesus a gnostics, just as little as he was a Christian for similar reasons: it was invented later. This is true even if some gnostic type thinking was in evidence well before Jesus's time, as in the Wisdom traditions of Judaism, etc.
So this becomes a classic case where the label really has nothing to contribute to the conversation, and in reality becomes an impediment to understanding the Thomas sayings as they should be understood, and without making Jesus into anything that he isn't. So the label - gnostic - in both cases cited above is an obfuscation, and it sullies the very freshness of the Thomas gospel, which first and foremost really remains an invitation to read and hear the sayings of Jesus just like they sounded, and it only takes a little effort to adjust in our imagination to be with him then and there. And realizing how easy that is, makes it also much easier to understand how he is with us here and now.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Taking Things Personally
This is the opposite of what Jesus teaches, and in the Thomas material, Logion 42 more than anything else makes the point. It is not for nothing that Pursah in Gary's books calls that her favorite saying Logion 42: "Be Passersby." You get there by realizing with William Shakespeare that "All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players." (And that includes you, kid! Not to mention it includes me too.)
There is one thing however that we should take very personally, and that is Jesus talking to us, as he does in the sayings. It seems to me many times that the very direct form of the Thomas sayings has that for its main purpose, to get our attention, and to relate to its source as if we were in a direct dialog. Thus to get out of our standing aside, and playing amateur historian, studying what this fellow Jesus said to this other fellow Thomas, as if it had nothing to do with us. Instead, we now have the opportunity to enter our own direct relationship with Jesus, and that is the clue to working with this material, as it is also with A Course in Miracles.
There is one thing however that we should take very personally, and that is Jesus talking to us, as he does in the sayings. It seems to me many times that the very direct form of the Thomas sayings has that for its main purpose, to get our attention, and to relate to its source as if we were in a direct dialog. Thus to get out of our standing aside, and playing amateur historian, studying what this fellow Jesus said to this other fellow Thomas, as if it had nothing to do with us. Instead, we now have the opportunity to enter our own direct relationship with Jesus, and that is the clue to working with this material, as it is also with A Course in Miracles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)