Jesus and Liberal Christianity

[Thomas]

Ahh, now we're getting close to the same ground ...

Namaste my brother...good stuff, like to delve into that reincarnation some more...looking forward to your thread.

Pax vobiscum, Wil ... but I'm not sure if I shall go there, unless someone like Vajradhara wants to pick it up. I'm not in mind to argue the point, just a 'yes' or a 'no' from an orthodox perspective.

Again my problem is doing the math. It is said that G-d is in Heaven. And Jesus is there at his right hand. Well we know that I think that all metaphor of sorts (hands etc.) but Jesus also said look neither high nor low, here nor there, the kingdom is in our midst, or within...

Yes. I would say 'within' in the sense of you will find it through your heart, not through this or that.

So that puts my connection awfully close, it puts G-d and Christ in each one of us.

I would have to disagree ... actually no, that's too harsh, I would have to express a reservation – such phraseology would suggest that God is at your disposal?

With modern science I look at string theory and wormholes and see that I have access to all that is ...

Ah, now 'access' to something is not quite the same as being that thing ... I have access to the Divine, but I am not Divine by nature.

right within my heart.
I would say through the Way of the Heart, in common, I think, to many if not most traditions.

Again, I am not saying you are right, or wrong, I'm trying to see how you determine a distinction between God and man.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

...such phraseology would suggest that God is at your disposal?

.... I am not Divine by nature....

...I'm trying to see how you determine a distinction between God and man....

You know the more we look into this the more I think the difference between "ortho" and "lib" is such minute nuance. from the perspective of face to face the chasms seem large...but like if you look at the big bang till now being 24 hours I think man came in in the last few seconds, and if we look at all the portions of thought being 24 hours we disagree only on a few seconds...and we truly agree at some level...tis the surface nuance that gets wavy...

Again the math, G-d made us in His image, and after we ate the apple He said, they have become like us. I truly see us as divine by nature, but *******ized by the material world. We got all these notions and physical emotions and temporary pleasures and greed and envy and material ego gratifications get in the way...

This is to me why some retreat to the monastary...because it is the only way for them to focus on G-d...to separate themselves from the temptation. This is why Muslims put women in the back, a Muslim man cannot focus on his prayers if he is watching a woman's rear bend over and prostrate herself in front of him...despite the burka, he is a man, of this world...and he needs the assistance to find his connection..his divine nature. Orthodox Jewish schools seperate the girls and the boys in religous classes by a barrier, a wall...same reason.

We out in this world have made another choice....some have made the choice to live in it, revel in it...others have chose to follow the master, and be in the world but not of it....quite the challenge.

Is G-d at my disposal...hmmm I don't like the word disposal, that is the thing in the sink that grinds up the garbage...uh oh...metaphor alert, maybe I do? Back to the other thought I don't see G-d at our beck and call, but also there every second when we need it.... follow my drift...not at my command...but there when I decide to open myself up. ie I can't be fully in the material world and have access to source...I've got to make the effort and the move...but every move I make one has already been made in my direction...that whole omnipresent thang.

Now what is the distinction between G-d and man? Would it be to obvious or smart ass to say Jesus? I think he defines the distinction, foot in both worlds as it were...

thoroughly enjoying this Thomas.

wil

[Zagreus]

A comment on reincarnation in the context of Divine Nature vs. Human nature, and where/how these two natures intersect ... if from a Theosophical or esoteric Christian viewpoint:

I would provide a link to a chart, posted here by Nick the Pilot, on the What is Theosophy thread. In the simpler of the two charts (thanks, Nick, mine has too many details!) ... Bishop Leadbeater considers our Divine Nature to be so much more important, relative to our human, that he has left out the direct correspondences entirely! (see much further below, and my quote from John)

If you look, you'll see that he shows a correspondence between the Threefold Nature of the Parent (or Transcendent) Trinity ... as reflecting itself into the Spiritual Triad of an individual human being. The former, Leadbeater calls the Triple Manifestation of the Logos, and even in terms of Theosophical or esoteric teachings it is altogether beyond the range or ken of humanity's spiritual evolution.

I believe that this corresponds to, or makes allowance for, anyone's insistence, inkling, or `gut feeling' (however firmly we wish to base our viewpoint on convention, tradition and doctrine) ... that humanity is not, in & of itself, unconditionally or without caveat `Divine.' Thomas, I'm thinking in terms which accommodate your own expressed beliefs - and presentation of Catholic theology - yet also with regard to a more conservative, or even more traditional, background.

Again, I know charts are just two-dimensional sketches, and sometimes I wince at them, nowadays, when I think what I've been through in my journey of incorporating (sic!) into my life the truths which they are supposed to represent ... but still, relative to the wonderful dialogue and exchange which I've been following between you two (wil and Thomas), I thought this 2-D chart might help clarify.

I would have to say that, of course, many a Buddhist - including Vajradhara, no doubt - would regard the Theosophical teaching as erroneous, since Shakyamuni is supposed to have denied a reincarnating Individuality, by whatever name we wish to regard to it. Yet I would humbly submit that this teaching (the Theosophical, or esoteric), makes every allowance for the emphasis that the Buddha was trying to make, and the errors of interpretation which he was making sure to avoid. Further explanation might require volumes (and qualifications I do not have), but if I can at all shorten my posts - or punctuate them by minimizing topics - I'd really rather do so!

Thus, if you've seen the chart Nick posted, also scroll up to notice my chart from Alice Bailey's writings, and notice the similarity, yet also the yellow triangle which Bailey provides as representative - on the plane of Higher Mind - of `the spiritual Ego,' or Soul (Atma, Buddhia, Manas).

Leadbeater does not represent it specifically, or via symbol, yet he does spell out `The Causal Body' on the chart which Nick uploaded. And in both Theosophical and other esoteric teachings, such as in FreeMasonry, the symbolic term often used for this vehicle of consciousness is `The Temple of Solomon.' Other terms include Karana Sarira, karanatman, and karanopadhi ... and so forth.

One meaning provided, then, for Christ's utterance in Matthew 6:19-21, is that the Causal Body, or Temple of Solomon (symbolically, allegorically) is being referenced. According to the charts provided, and esoteric teachings, our physical body, our emotional (astral) body, and even our mental (mind) body are temporal, mortal, and ultimately emphemeral ... in the sense that they are composed primarily of a rupa - or form-nature, and only partially infused, or ensouled by Spirit, Life, or a Consciousness-Nature.

So when, as a Theosophist or esotericist, even a Liberal or Esoteric Christian, I myself - or many others - speak of a Divine Nature, inherent in man [Humanity] ... it is by no means that I am suggesting something out of line with the ancient, traditional and esoteric teachings on this subject, as presented within the Mystery Traditions.


I think we will find that, experientially, no matter what we do, we will do well to check ourself (and our beliefs, and whatever doctrines we've come to embrace) by Christ's own words, in John 14:10:

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:
but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

So here is Jesus, Christed Jesus even, seeking to direct our attention and focus away from outward appearances, and even away from his own Person, or personality ... and toward something (or Some`ONE') else "entirely" (I qualify this word, but I think Jesus was gently scolding Philip, and reminding His disicples, when he uttered the above). Why?

Why else, if not to remind them, that even the Son of God, the Christed MAN, elsewhere said to have been at-one'd with OUR Father, was not yet the "Whole" Man, or the Whole Manifestation of Godhood/Godhead!

So much for "fully human, fully Divine!"

The Divine Aspects of an individual human being, as presented by Theosophists, and esotericists of all different schools and flavors, include Atma (our link, or connection with "Pure" Spirit), Buddhi (which is our Unity, or Oneness, with the Unary Spiritual Soul of all of Humanity) and Manas (which is more or less the Individual, Reincarnating Ego, or Soul, of a human being).

The confusion will enter in, if I may be so bold, when we make the cognitive, metaphysical, ontological, theological or otherwise interpretative mistake - in our own understanding - of taking this Reincarnating, Individual SOUL (`Ego') to be ME, Myself, and `I.'

The confusion is quite the same, in terms of our deeper consciousness, as might arise if - understandably - we looked at the Theosophists' use of this word `Ego,' and, forgetting its simple reference to the `I am' consciousness, assume that it means the same as the ego concept from modern psychology. To be fair, the term was present, and pervasive, in Theosopical usage, long before it had become so popular and emphasized by the Freudian school ... in modern psychology.

So, naturally enough - and here is where, among other places, the Buddhist contribution truly shines - if we pretend, or believe, even for a moment, that it is the psychological ego which is the "real man," which survives bodily death, and either enters a permanent heaven, or returns to reincarnation (depending on our religious standpoint) ... then indeed, we have missed the proverbial boat entirely.

Temporary ego dissolution - and transcendence, whether brought about ("aided," or caused) by psychoactive substances, or facilitated by spiritual, meditative or other disciplinary practices ... does not require physical death at all - or even, I would submit, spiritual or religious belief(s), as when drug-induced by an agnostic/atheist.

I think it behooves us to ask what it is which the Mystic has been experiencing all this time, when s/he goes beyond the ego of psychology, and enters into a life-changing, if temporary, state of union, bliss and `Oneness' with God, the Soul, and even `the Totality of Being,' as some mystics have put it.

If I wanted to make only one point in this entire post, it would be to say I believe there is a Divine Aspect (err, all THREE, actually) present, or latent, within every Human being ... and that this does not contradict the teachings of Christianity, even if it may not jibe with a more rigid, strict application of Catholic doctrines, or of some of the more conservative aspects of a Fundamental Christianity, as presented and being discussed on other threads here at CR.

And to borrow one of the oldest metaphors and beautific images associated with the path of spiritual development, I would add that I believe our progress is more than resemblant of the unfoldment of the Lotus Flower. The inner, Spiritual bud is at first altogether concealed, then it is gradually - very gradually - revealed, as the surrounding petals open in due & proper order, over a period of several earthly lives which culminate our chain of human rebirths.

On the one hand, we could show that these petals are the spiritual upadhi, or basis for the incarnate human consciousness, and have a direct correspondence with the cardinal Virtues that it is the duty, or Dharma, of every incarnating jiva to develop in its earthly sojourn. Or we could make reference to the inner, hidden Jewel - the Spark of Life Itself, `Our Father Who art in Heaven,' as Christ chose to speak of it ... and of the importance of returning to the Father's House whence we were originally sent forth.

But at what point, if we acknowledge an esoteric cosmology and chronology, will it become convenient and/or necessary to cease referring to our original, Divinely-produced Spiritual Spark ... the Hidden LIFE which indwells all outer forms - as "Divine?" Where do we decide, here there is `God,' and here there is `no-god?' When does the great heresy of separateness take over?

What I believe, and I have been called a solipsist as well as a total subjectivist or relativist for it, is that indeed, there is nothing here but God, such that ALL, Everything, and Everyone around us (including our own `self') - is a PART of the One Divine Expression. And if we feel we must speak of an ultimate, Transcendent `God,' Whom & which stands apart, and aloof, from `His' Creation, then this is well, and good, if it helps us to smile, and remember that Life exists for a Purpose. {earl, you gettin this?}

I mean this, because the more I explore a belief in monotheism, and consider what people are saying by the simple expression, "I believe in God," the more I feel that we are not so different, in terms of spiritual belief, after all. I just figure there is nothing we can say or know about this Transcendent Being, so I remain comfortable with the idea that Cosmos is the Expression of said Being ... and through Cosmos, we can and eventually will come to Know, Experience and Return to ... the very heart of `G-d.'

What is the relationship ... of our Individual, reincarnating `Ego,' the human Soul ... to you, me, and every other human being, as an earthly personality?

I think it is like this: The radiant, beautiful, Shining One within, is seated quietly before a pool of water, which ever remains (for the Soul) pure and calm, reflecting the Image of the Inner Man in pristine clarity of vision. In order to apprehend this vision, much less the true nature (Divine!) of the Shining One within, we must learn to look up, from the bottom of the pool, through the mud & murk of ordinary, everyday life - and trust that in time, the truth will be revealed to us.

Though the circumstances do not change for our Soul, the Being so described, the changing conditions of outer life amost seem to conspire to prevent us from coming to apprehend the true nature of the Self. The winds often blow furiously, and ruffle the calm surface of the water. The water becomes polluted - almost impossible to prevent given current conditions of life in the world, yet we do our utmost to match our earthly lives to the standards which the spiritual life requires. And as for the muck & murk of the bottom of the pool ... the moist soil of human experience which presents a thousand temptations, and distractions, from true contemplation of the Soul and other verities? Well this speaks for itself ...

The Shining One will not, because it cannot, simply stand up - and dive into the pool of our outward, worldly consciousness, and reveal itself, saying, "Here, I am (the) Divine!" We are called to overcome the obstacles - placed in our path not to bar our progress, but to facilitate it and to draw out our fullest potential. In so doing, our entire lower, mortal nature (see chart) becomes pure, clear, and spirtually receptive - eventually prepared for the higher knowledge, which leads us on the Path, even becoming that Path Itself.

And in the walking of said Path, I am convinced, of my own experience & finding, that the Divine will reveal Itself to each and every one of us ... and this just brings me back to the muck & the murk of the bottom of the pool - and a longing, a renewed determination, to prepare my own way ... since whether I speak as a Theosophist, a Christian, or otherwise, I do not think Christ can or will come, until we have made a place for Him.

And this is true both individually, and collectively ...

(so much for brevity, I'll have to tackle that, too, with renewed resolve!)

Namaskar,

andrew