The Trouble with Transcendental Unity of Religions

[China Cat Sunflower]

Elitism is pretty well inevitable. Whether we're talking about esoterica or exoterica, the conversation can't be continually restarted to accommodate newbies and pedestrians. I understand that there are ring-pass-nots to higher levels of awareness and knowledge. I think that there is a good deal of ceremonial puffery that goes with the socio politics of academic and liturgical pecking orders, though.

Chris

[Raksha]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Elitism is pretty well inevitable.

I suppose, but it's SOOOO annoying! And it doesn't have to be encouraged, much less sanctified.

Whether we're talking about esoterica or exoterica, the conversation can't be continually restarted to accommodate newbies and pedestrians.

Of course not, but what I object to is when someone ass-umes (based upon nothing) that I'm a newbie or pedestrian when I'm not.

I understand that there are ring-pass-nots to higher levels of awareness and knowledge.

Of course, but those gates can take care of themselves with no need for self-appointed gatekeepers. It happens all the time...you read something and think to yourself, "Well, that was clear as mud." Then a few months or a year later, or maybe many years later, you read the same thing and it makes perfect sense! It's so clear and self-evident you have no idea why you didn't understand it the first time.

That can only mean you've somehow acquired the maturity and insight to enter the gate, where you were turned away before. Why can't people who claim to trust the process put their money where their mouth is, and actually trust it?

--Linda

[China Cat Sunflower]

All the information is out there now, so Gatekeeper is pretty much a ceremonial office. OTOH, the best information is now in subscription only professional and academic journals, though it's still accessible for a price. There is a market for authors who can translate the intricacies of science and metaphysics into accessible language. Elitism may be inevitable, but if you want to sell books you'd better dispense with the ego and make it accessible. We don't need no stinkin' gurus!

Chris

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Raksha

Of course, but those gates can take care of themselves with no need for self-appointed gatekeepers.

The actuality of gatekeepers is founded in Scripture ...
"And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24)

"And she (Mary Magdalene) saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid." (John 20:12)

"And I will give to thee (Peter ... and his successors) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

The fact that you don't like is is your problem, no-one else's.

Originally Posted by Raksha

It happens all the time...you read something and think to yourself, "Well, that was clear as mud." Then a few months or a year later, or maybe many years later, you read the same thing and it makes perfect sense! It's so clear and self-evident you have no idea why you didn't understand it the first time.

And by the same token, some never understand it, and some get it completely wrong, others get it right but never understand what it means ... and everyone promotes their own opinion, mostly from the standpoint of ignorance ... so you end up with a Tower of Babel ... and truth becomes something of a lottery.

It's the equivalent of a shepherd letting his flock roam where it will, and counting the survivors at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by Raksha

That can only mean you've somehow acquired the maturity and insight to enter the gate, where you were turned away before. Why can't people who claim to trust the process put their money where their mouth is, and actually trust it?

Ask yourself the same question ... If you believe in Christ, why don't you trust in that which He put in place?

Thomas

[Dream]

I'm on the edge of my seat to hear what anyone has to say about the cherubim.

The word 'Cherubim' is very difficult to figure out, although I have a working theory. Aside from the Garden of Eden, the word only appears in descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant and in Ezekiel. There are rumors and artwork that represent the cherub as a winged creature, but these do not explain what the cherub was and why it used a flaming sword. The word for flame in the flaming-sword is the same as the word used for the fiery or poisonous bite of the serpents in the wilderness. In Christianity, the poisoned bite is called 'Death's sting', and the cherub may be a representation of death. The word cherub is rarely used, but its appearance in Ezekiel is significant as it parallels a vision given to Isaiah in which appear two Winged Seraphaim who guard the glory. The word for Seraphaim is the same word used for serpent in the wilderness. So I see a strong tie between the Cherubim with the flaming sword, death's sting, and the fiery serpents in the wilderness. Here is the way to the tree of life. Here is the key to death, hell, and the grave.

Since Christianity has been brought into the discussion: I keep in mind that Jesus always said "He that has ears let him hear," which was the real rub between him and the priesthood of his day. His correction to them was that they should be reading the text for themselves instead of viewing it through thick lenses of previous interpreters. He was saying the opposite of "Listen to me, or listen to a certain appointed individual." In effect a man's gatekeepers are his ears, according to Jesus. From that standpoint, his statement of 'Way, truth, and the life' gives Christians a radical reason to consider viewpoints from other religions, since it is not the speaker but the hearer who is the gatekeeper.

[Raksha]

"And I will give to thee (Peter ... and his successors) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

Thomas,

I should have seen this coming...the most self-vouching passage in the entire New Testament! Catholics just LOVE to quote this one in defense of the traditional power structure, but...what if the person you're addressing isn't Catholic? I consider myself eclectic, the influences being mostly Jewish/Gnostic/Pagan. Nowadays the Pagan influence is the one in the foreground, but the other two are never inoperative.

Judaism is my birth religion. I am not, never have been, and never intend to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church! So what makes you think this blatantly self-vouching text will impress me any more than it did the first 100 times someone quoted it at me?

The disciples said to Jesus:
We know that thou wilt go away from us. Who is it
who shall be great over us? Jesus said to them:
Wherever you have come, you will go to James the righteous
For whose sake heaven and earth came into being.
--The Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12

It is my belief that the Gospel of Thomas was omitted from the NT canon mostly on the basis of this passage, for obvious reasons. But given my background, is there some reason I should NOT take it as the more authentic and authoritative text?

--Linda

[Raksha]

Ask yourself the same question ... If you believe in Christ, why don't you trust in that which He put in place?

Thomas,

Two objections here. First of all, I DON'T "believe in Christ," not in the way you mean anyway. I just explained that in my last post.

Second of all, in the immortal words of that great Jewish prophet Robert Zimmerman, aka Bob Dylan: "You ain't him."

I said, "they refused Jesus too."
He said, "you ain't him."

Oh yeah, and one other thing: You're not the angel with the flaming sword either. We are ALL destined to eat from the Tree of Life sooner or later, and many already have.

--Linda

[Raksha]

We don't need no stinkin' gurus!

Chris,

That's for damn sure! Sometimes they do more harm than good, and this time I'm not referring to their self-appointed "gatekeeper" function.

Last night I received an e-mail from an old friend I lost track of many years ago. It brought home to me vividly how much damage can be done when two self-proclaimed gurus get into a turf war over a promising student, who may be too young and inexperienced to protect himself. The student can end up psychically dismembered in the tug-of-war between them, almost literally torn to pieces. It's all couched in very "spiritual" and even esoteric terms, but in reality it's no more "spiritual" than two wolves fighting over a fresh kill.

I was an eyewitness to a situation like this a long time ago. I actually saw it happen, but didn't understand WHAT I was seeing until many years later--not until last night, in fact. Absolutely HORRIBLE!

--Linda

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Raksha,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Raksha

In a serious attempt to be fair, I just did a search on his name and spent the last several hours reading interviews with him. I found a great deal to agree with, a lot of real insight and wisdom. But again I detected that irritating note of paternalism, and again I experienced the same negative response.

may i ask why paternalism produces a negative emotional response for you?

It's especially noticeable when he talks about shamanism. For example: He freely admits that the Australian aborigines are telepathic and that this is a normal ability with them,...
And yet for all that he admires and defends aboriginal cultures, he STILL feels compelled to issue the standard Western knee-jerk paternalistic warnings against focusing on the development of the "siddhis" or paranormal abilities, because that can result in ego inflation and so on. The "do-not-try-this-at-home" attitude. Well, sometimes you don't even HAVE to try because it happens on its own.

whilst it is true that the development of the supramundane abilities are part and parcel of progression within the Path the idea being communicated is that to use the siddhis as the goal or measurement of ones progress is going to create obstacles rather than remove them. his view, however, is not particularly western in this regard as this is the same teaching which the Buddha Shakyamuni gave regarding the way in which Buddhists should regard these phenomena. i have a feeling that Dr. Smith was paraphrasing this teaching.

I know perfectly well when I am experiencing telepathy, and so do you and so does everyone.

i'd imagine it would take some time to sort it out if it happened to me. i suspect that such a thing would be quite unusual and i'd not be really sure that what i experienced was an accurate understanding of another sentient beings consciousness.

Part of the problem of course is our culture's obsession with scientism, and the constantly repeated assertions that such experiences are "hallucinations."

do i understand you to be saying that the problem with not being able to use telepathy on a consistent basis is a cultural grounding in scientific objectivism?

i would tend to think that such would not have very much to do with it given that the development of such abilities is consonant with ones progress upon the Path of Awakening.

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

I'm on the edge of my seat to hear what anyone has to say about the cherubim.

The word 'Cherubim' is very difficult to figure out, although I have a working theory. Aside from the Garden of Eden, the word only appears in descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant and in Ezekiel. There are rumors and artwork that represent the cherub as a winged creature, but these do not explain what the cherub was and why it used a flaming sword. The word for flame in the flaming-sword is the same as the word used for the fiery or poisonous bite of the serpents in the wilderness. In Christianity, the poisoned bite is called 'Death's sting', and the cherub may be a representation of death. The word cherub is rarely used, but its appearance in Ezekiel is significant as it parallels a vision given to Isaiah in which appear two Winged Seraphaim who guard the glory. The word for Seraphaim is the same word used for serpent in the wilderness. So I see a strong tie between the Cherubim with the flaming sword, death's sting, and the fiery serpents in the wilderness. Here is the way to the tree of life. Here is the key to death, hell, and the grave.

Since Christianity has been brought into the discussion: I keep in mind that Jesus always said "He that has ears let him hear," which was the real rub between him and the priesthood of his day. His correction to them was that they should be reading the text for themselves instead of viewing it through thick lenses of previous interpreters. He was saying the opposite of "Listen to me, or listen to a certain appointed individual." In effect a man's gatekeepers are his ears, according to Jesus. From that standpoint, his statement of 'Way, truth, and the life' gives Christians a radical reason to consider viewpoints from other religions, since it is not the speaker but the hearer who is the gatekeeper.

I would venture that it is probably related to the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps it might be blind attachment to what we perceive as good (obsessive-compulsive, addictive behavior in extreme), and blind aversion to what we percieve as bad (blind emnity and hatred in extreme.) Both obsessive-compulsive, addictive behavior and emnity/hatred could be described as "fiery" in their action and the way they propagate.

Even Raksha's aversion to gatekeepers fits in with this possible explanation.

Please proceed to punch as many holes as possible in this theory. I'm really interested in testing this perspective. {I promise that I won't start spitting venom out of spite over it, either. }

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Raksha

I should have seen this coming...

Yes, it knocks your argument into a cocked hat ... both the Old Testament and the New evidence the existence of 'gatekeepers' — Jesus Christ being the Gate of All.

Originally Posted by Raksha

So what makes you think this blatantly self-vouching text will impress me any more than it did the first 100 times someone quoted it at me?

I don't know ... what makes you think your blatantly self-vouching pronouncements impress me? All I did was point out that in the Abrahamic traditions (and in the gnostic traditions even moreso) present the ideas of gatekeepers.

Originally Posted by Raksha

It is my belief that the Gospel of Thomas was omitted from the NT canon mostly on the basis of this passage, for obvious reasons. But given my background, is there some reason I should NOT take it as the more authentic and authoritative text?

Well:
a) because your reasoning is ill-founded, it's an assumption without a shred of evidence to support it — so a belief founded on prejudice.
b) if you're going to dispute the authenticity and authority of the Canon, then there is no logical way you can claim authenticity or authority for GoT, as it lacks any of the requirements of authenticity or authority that the Canon has.

If the canon is not authoritative and authentic, then the GoT is less so, by every common-sense standard.

Thomas

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Seattlegal

Please proceed to punch as many holes as possible in this theory....it is probably related to the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Playing devil's advocate, so this does not necessarily represent my point of view (unless I win).

Originally Posted by Seattlegal

Perhaps it might be blind attachment to what we perceive as good (obsessive-compulsive, addictive behavior in extreme), and blind aversion to what we percieve as bad (blind emnity and hatred in extreme.) Both obsessive-compulsive, addictive behavior and emnity/hatred could be described as "fiery" in their action and the way they propagate.

Are you suggesting the trees are next to each other? The Cherubim are guarding the way to the tree of life, not necessarily the way to the tree of knowledge of good & evil.

You are associating blindness with death, but in the garden the man & woman were naked and did not know it. Upon eating the KOG&E fruit their eyes were opened. They were driven from the garden, so that in the absence of the tree of life they would die. In blindness they lived, and with sight they died.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

Playing devil's advocate, so this does not necessarily represent my point of view (unless I win).
Are you suggesting the trees are next to each other? The Cherubim are guarding the way to the tree of life, not necessarily the way to the tree of knowledge of good & evil.

Possibly. The reason why I suggested that the action of the Cherubim could be related to the partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is because that is the reason why the path to the tree of life needed to be guarded. Simple and elegant.

You are associating blindness with death, but in the garden the man & woman were naked and did not know it. Upon eating the KOG&E fruit their eyes were opened. They were driven from the garden, so that in the absence of the tree of life they would die. In blindness they lived, and with sight they died.

No I'm associating blind attachment and blind aversion with death. (If you use blind attachment/aversion to navigate through life, it will only take one time being at the wrong place and the wrong time with a faulty sense of aversion/attraction to give yourself a Darwin Award...How long can you beat the odds?)

[Thomas]

Hi Dream —

If you want to know about angels in the Christian Tradition, you should read "The Celestial Hierarchy" by Dionysius the Areopagite.

According to Dionysius, "there are nine Orders of Angels, figures of the nine Archetypes in God; and each one obtains a name corresponding to the property in God which it exhibits."

The Cherubim are those 'who may be called loving Wisdoms, as those first may be called wise Loves. For there is in each both love and wisdom.'

But in the first, inasmuch as they are nearer to God, the very Sun of Truth, this exists in a far greater degree. ... Such then is the difference between these Orders: namely, that in the latter is knowledge proceeding from love; in the former is love proceeding from knowledge.'

In the Christian idea, angels are Celestial Intelligences and, accordingly from Scripture, function as messengers and emissaries of God.
'Among all the Angels, from the higher ones even down to us, there is a mutual and alternate announcement proceeding from above; as they receive and deliver in turn what they announce in a marvellous and most beautiful order. Since among the Angels themselves there is an order of all ordinances after the pattern of the Order of all.... But every announcement is a receiving, informing, purifying, enlightening, perfecting and representing of the Divine Truth; the Light of which as it goes forth in order and shines upon all, so distinguishes and marks each object in a wonderful manner, that everything shines forth in it in its own proper quality, and stands out and appears in its own nature, with its individual powers and office, exhibiting in its own degree some perfection in God, in whom all perfection is in its highest; nay, rather, who is Himself the proper Perfection of every one, perfecting all things, in whom there is nothing perfect but Himself.'

+++

Originally Posted by Dream

In Christianity, the poisoned bite is called 'Death's sting', and the cherub may be a representation of death.

Where is that?

Originally Posted by Dream

Since Christianity has been brought into the discussion: I keep in mind that Jesus always said "He that has ears let him hear," which was the real rub between him and the priesthood of his day. His correction to them was that they should be reading the text for themselves instead of viewing it through thick lenses of previous interpreters. He was saying the opposite of "Listen to me, or listen to a certain appointed individual." In effect a man's gatekeepers are his ears, according to Jesus.

Not a Christian interpretation I have ever heard — nowhere and never has any Christian taught that you should ignore the Word of God — and what Christ states over and again is man's inability to comprehend what he reads and what he hears.

Everybody thinking they know best is the source of the problem, not its solution. It's also nigh-on a fact that as soon as we go our own way, we're most probably making a mistake ... "hey ma, look! everyone's marching out of step but me!"

Originally Posted by Dream

From that standpoint, his statement of 'Way, truth, and the life' gives Christians a radical reason to consider viewpoints from other religions, since it is not the speaker but the hearer who is the gatekeeper.

The famous Holman Hunt picture sums up the idea of the self as gatekeeper — in "The Light of the World" Christ stands outside the gate, but there is no handle. In that sense then, it is we who have to open the door to Him — but we are not really 'inside' (as much as we like to think we are) but lost, or rather in darkness ... and too stupid to open the door ... and to assume that we determine what is true or false, what is right or wrong, is a fallacy, and is the very reason why we are in the predicament we find ourselves in, in the first place.

Thomas

[Dream]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Possibly. The reason why I suggested that the action of the Cherubim could be related to the partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is because that is the reason why the path to the tree of life needed to be guarded. Simple and elegant.

I almost drew a flowchart, but it is simple yeah.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

No I'm associating blind attachment and blind aversion with death. (If you use blind attachment/aversion to navigate through life, it will only take one time being at the wrong place and the wrong time with a faulty sense of aversion/attraction to give yourself a Darwin Award...How long can you beat the odds?)

Lets do some charades. What's my motivation?

Ok, I'm Adam & Eve outside of the garden. Do I dearly desire to go back into the garden and eat of the life-giving fruit? If so, the fiery critter is in my way. How can this creature represent my passions? In other words "Do I have a passion to enter the garden, or is my motivation something besides passion?" How do I tell the difference, SG?

In the same story there is enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Her seed will crush the head of the serpent with his heel, someday. This crushing has been loudly heralded as a remedy to my (Adam & Eve's) outcast condition. Does the serpent also represent my passions? Is it my passion that its head be crushed? If not, then who's passion is it?