What does it MEAN to be a Christian?

[Thomas]

Hi VC -

Glad you're enjoying it ...

Yes Christ quoted Scripture, but then so did the Scribes and Pharisees that he denounced. The difference is that he quoted to reveal the deeper underlying truths, rather than the formal superficial words. That is our challenge too.

Indeed. I was simply arguing that Christ quoted Scripture often, in defence of the assumption that such was blind dogmatism.

Jesus is quoted on numerous occasions (the centurion's daughter, "many will come from the East and the West", "in spirit and in truth") as teaching that his mission extended to the whole human race, that the Jewish people had become too small a vessel to hold it. What the church has done is to create another small vessel, and fight to keep it to themselves. IMHO, Christ would not be amused.

It was Christ who created the Church:
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

Furthermore no vessel is 'too small' - as long as one Christian lives, and even if only one, then so does the mission, and so does the Church - in the beginning, only eleven held it. Number is purely quantitative.

Might I also add that Christ showed awe in the faith of the Centurian, who accepted Christ's authority without question.

As for the keys of the kingdom quote, well, it's very convenient for the Church to have this written down in the Gospels isn't it?

It's very convenient for the church to have any Gospel at all - or perhaps it is providential? Wether one chooses to believe it or not is another matter - but the point is, belief is an all or nothing affair - unless we are the ones dictating terms to God.

But how likely is it? Can you think of any theological justification for this verse, or does it stand out like a sore thumb?

Theological justification - Yep - the assumption is that anybody who can read can understand Scripture - I submit that is a gross assumption - and there's plenty of evidence to support that view - therefore I think it unthinkable that God would have given a message, and made no provision for its safekeeping or transmission.

How unlikely is it that Moses would have come down the mountain with 10 Commandments? Or that God said 'write this down...' you'd think if God was talking to you, you'd remember what He said ...

You can guess what I think.

Hmmm ... I rather think I can ...

Thomas

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Furthermore no vessel is 'too small' - as long as one Christian lives, and even if only one, then so does the mission, and so does the Church - in the beginning, only eleven held it. Number is purely quantitative.

I must call you on a wee bit of circular logic here, Thomas. You are begging the question!

Not as sharp as I once was, when it comes to logic ... and in a hurry (more later), but what is title of this thread!? If one Christian alone can constitute the vessel for Christ's Mission, then it should be very easy indeed to define what it is that MAKES this wo/man that vessel!

And, should I fail to find the crucifix, cross or other emblematic proof dangling from this person's neck to indicate his or her allegiance ... how is it, that this person is Christian?

If s/he simply says "I believe," then is there ANYthing - which you in feel that we can string along behind these words that will succinctly address the matter at hand? And if so, what if that person suddenly converts? What is s/he declares that faith in Jesus Christ has been lost, and explicity takes the vows of the Buddhist laity? Church wipes, eh?

Ahhh, and what if s/he does NOT declare a loss of faith in Christ, yet takes these Buddhist lay vows ANYWAY!?! Then what!

This thread is interesting to me for several reasons. Only one of them is the idea that I might actually learn - ontologically speaking - the answer to the question at hand. Another reason, is that I think it will necessarily involve, at some point, sooner or later, even if it kills us trying .... a discussion of the virtues, qualities of character and otherwise defining traits of the Christian! This is what matters to me, and in the last analysis, from a practical point of view, to the rest of the planet ...

But if it all falls back to "I believe!" - then I suppose we could stop discussion dead, right here!

Namaskar,

andrew

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not quite - He is the incarnate Son - we are children by adoption - there is a difference. We are not the Trinity.

As an esotericist, and esoteric Christian, this is not quite what I believe. In fact, we are the Trinity! This could be approached from dozens of angles, but in simplest terms, I maintain (on no less than Scriptural Authority!) that in our highest Essence (sic), we are literally a Spark of the Divine Logos. This means that our Identity is not different or other than God the Father, 1st Aspect.


True, we do not yet recognize this in our daily awareness, nor fully - even in a state of Bliss - until we are Transfigured. Until then, we are St. Paul's carnal, or Babes in Christ. And as the Apostle put it, who was himself one so Transfigured (described Biblically as his "conversion"):

I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (I Cor 3:1-2)

Notice the parallel:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. (Matthew 3:11)

For starters, we can investigate A Treatise on Cosmic Fire (being the psychological key to The Secret Doctrine). This 1000+ page volume deals extensively with the esoteric significance of the familiar truism of Deuteronomy 4:24.

And the Mystery of Identity, we are told, is not finally revealed until the Fifth Initiation, which neither St. Paul nor Jesus of Nazareth had attained in their respective lifetimes (!). Yet we presume to say that we have the authority, or even that the Church does, to interpret Christ's most intimate Teachings? Hmmm ...

The Spark, or 1st Aspect, clothes itself in spiritual substance, this - as a principle - constituting the 2nd Aspect, St. Paul's "Christ within," which is not other than Christ the World Teacher ... save that the latter represents the natural outcome of Ephesians 4:13, rather than our current status as the carnal, or Babes in Christ.

How does the Christ within unfold, grow, develop, mature, or progress upon the Spiritual Path? It is the same for you, as for me, as for Joe Blow, as for Mary, Joseph and Jesus: By virtue of incarnating into the material world, "falling" into Generation, which is involvement with the 3rd Aspect of Logos (Active Intelligence, Holy Spirit indeed, the Creative Forces or Demi-Urgos).

MAN, like God, is the Trinity. For in the likeness of God were we fashioned ... and I don't think it was one of those circus mirrors She was looking into when Sophia Achamoth fashioned us.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Andrew - that is such an arrogant and transparently anti-Catholic comment! Shame on you!

Presumptuous, I will grant you ... but anti-Catholic? I deny it! Remember that as an esotericist, I believe in a distinction between Christ, the Bodhisattva or World Teacher, and Jesus of Nazareth, now a Master of the Wisdom (or technically, a Lord of Compassion - and a Chohan, or `Dharma Lord' at that). I also have the same Faith in the authority of Revealed Teaching as you do; I simply cast my net wider, and include Revelation of the past 150 years. Contest them if you like, but consider these words of the Tibetan Master:

The Master Jesus, Who is the focal point of the energy that flows through the various Christian churches, is at present living in a Syrian body, and dwells in a certain part of the Holy Land.

His pupils are frequently distinguished by that fanaticism and devotion which manifested in earlier Christian times amongst the martyrs. He Himself is rather a martial figure, a disciplinarian, and a man of iron rule and will.


He has stayed and worked with the Christian Church, fostering the germ of true spiritual life which is to be found amongst members of all sects and divisions, and neutralizing as far as possible the mistakes and errors of the churchmen and the theologians. He is distinctively the Great Leader, the General, and the wise Executive, and in Church matters He co-operates closely with the Christ, thus saving Him much and acting as His intermediary wherever possible. No one so wisely knows as He the problems of the West, no one is so closely in touch with the people who stand for all that is best in Christian teachings, and no one is so well aware of the need of the present moment. Certain great prelates of the Anglican and Catholic Churches are wise agents of His.

- Initiation, Human and Solar, pp. 56-57

It is the last sentence which I wanted to highlight, though several others are relevant. I maintain this indication of the Tibetan's, and I might add to these words with a few from Master Jesus:

And some of these ministers in name, walk with great pride and an air of self-righteousness, deeming themselves to possess the only key to Truth, even though I taught my disciples to practice humility, saying, blessed are the humble in spirit; since only the humble of mind and spirit are receptive to enlightenment.

Alas, that they should shut the door to Knowledge by reason of their watertight convictions, and shut their ears to my voice which fain would whisper to them a little more of Truth ... But who listens to gentle voices who deemeth to know all himself?

And wherefore, my son, do my proclaimers of glad tidings clothe themselves in garments of mourning? Rather would I wish to see them clad in less sombre apparel.

Yet there are others who dress in scarlet and fine linen as a mark of their spiritual status; and this, even though by my example I desired to teach unostentation.

But think not that I deprecate all grandeur and pomp and ceremony when employed for righteous ends and in the right spirit, for they have their place in the Divine Purpose. Gloom and gloominess do I deprecate, and the assumption on the part of some of my misguided followers that colour and beauty are unrighteous and ungodly and pertaining to "the Devil."

Is it not written in my Gospels: The Kingdom of God is within you - yet think these gloomy ones that the kingdom of God is misery and ugliness instead of Joy?

Although my words were unequivocal, too little have my ministers proclaimed the joyful immanence of God, so that knowing it man should realize his inherent divinity.

Verily, right thought giveth life and health, and giveth it more abundantly, and the immanence of God is a right thought. But too much have my ministers chosen to stress only His transcendence, thus believeing themselves to be His intermediaries.


As leaders of prayer and performers of uplifting ceremonies, and as ministers to the sick and sorrowing do I bless my priests.

- The Vision of the Nazarene, penned by Cyril Scott (only the bold is mine)

Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Your agenda is showing its petticoats, old friend!!!

Mine is Truth. Yours is the Church. You make that clear. That you believe the Church to be in possession of Truth, I recognize. That there is Greater Truth, even within every human Heart, I also recognize. True, it is in potential, not yet realized ... again, vide the writings of St. Paul. But see also, since these words are relevant, the Teaching of the Lord of Lords Himself, just 75 years (1932) in the utterance:

Henceforth I come not solely through groups with recognized officials, through organizations rendering me what is often no more than lip-service in their assumptions of Brotherhood; I come to each and all who love me, no matter of what race, class or creed. The greatness of their need of me, the strength of their desire to see me, shall be the measure of their power to see me. The peasant in the Swiss mountains; the scientist in his laboratory; the artist dreaming of his creation; the mystic and the psychologist; the spiritualist and the musician--to these and many others I come if their intuition, their inner vision be true enough to recognize me, if there be in their hearts That which responds to the Love which eternally flows forth to them from mine.
...
Therefore by this Power which I hold, this Power of Almighty Love, seek I to draw the hearts of men into unity with that Good, that Happiness, which is for all men the goal, no matter what name they ascribe to it, no matter under what guise and seeming it appears to them. The ways of search be manifold, but on each of these I am ready to meet my own.


And through these my own will I speak, will I walk amongst men when the hour strikes; not confined to one recognized medium or vehicle, but where-ever the light of aspiration is kindled within a heart, there is my medium, there my vehicle.

- Through the Eyes of the Masters: Meditations and Portraits, by David Anrias

This needs no highlight, no emphasis.

Originally Posted by Thomas

You have often presented me with the authority of your own sources - many of whom are entirely subjective - and I/we are expected to accept them on your authority. I have never made any such claim, I always defer to the authority of the Church, Scripture and Tradition, because I know that even in absolute certainty, I am still fallible.

Perhaps it is good to remind you of the words of another of this world's Saviors:

THE LORD BUDDHA HAS SAID

that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them: nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."

And help us ... to do our part.

Namaskara,

taijasa

[taijasi]

double post, browser error ... apologies

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Which is exactly the point of Christians who point out that if you throw out the foundational Christian beliefs, i.e., the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity, then the name 'Christian' becomes pretty much meaningless. Yet when they point this out everyone jumps on them as being judgemental and lacking in tolerance.

2 c,
luna

I just want to point out, again, that Christian is also an ethnicity. Anyone who celebrates Christmas is ethnically Christian. What I find interesting is all the hubbub over drawing lines around who or what is Christian. It's so goofy, shallow, and self serving, and so obviously masks a deep sense of insecurity. I don't understand why people have such a keen interest in banging that drum all day.

Here we are on the Liberal Christianity board, which has been excommunicated from the mainstream (whatever that is) Christianity board. I was watching the Eyes on the Prize series on PBS tonight. It's about the civil rights movement in the 1960's. And I'm thinking about the white Christian ministers, priests, and nuns who came down to the south and risked their lives to help blacks realize their right to vote. That's liberal Christianity! That's the kind of stuff that's too uncomfortable for the conservatives to accept. And, as MLK said, it's the apathy of otherwise good people that allows injustice to continue.

The struggle isn't over, but we also have new issues to face today, and liberal denominations, like the Episcopal church, are standing up to be counted just like those white people who came down to march in Selma. And all the while those who are more comfortable protecting the status quo, and those whose apathy and lack of courage and moral fortitude tacitly support them, continue to insist that those who are progressive in thier doctrinal and social point of view should be fenced out of thier own religion. This is the impetus behind all the squabbling over who or what Christianity is. That's why it's so important to construct a definition of Christianity that disenfrachises, and moves to a safe distance people who might disrupt the status quo.

Chris

[flowperson]

China Cat:

A brilliant and meaningful post, IMHO.

flow....

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I just want to point out, again, that Christian is also an ethnicity. Anyone who celebrates Christmas is ethnically Christian. What I find interesting is all the hubbub over drawing lines around who or what is Christian. It's so goofy, shallow, and self serving, and so obviously masks a deep sense of insecurity. I don't understand why people have such a keen interest in banging that drum all day.

Here we are on the Liberal Christianity board, which has been excommunicated from the mainstream (whatever that is) Christianity board. I was watching the Eyes on the Prize series on PBS tonight. It's about the civil rights movement in the 1960's. And I'm thinking about the white Christian ministers, priests, and nuns who came down to the south and risked their lives to help blacks realize their right to vote. That's liberal Christianity! That's the kind of stuff that's too uncomfortable for the conservatives to accept. And, as MLK said, it's the apathy of otherwise good people that allows injustice to continue.

The struggle isn't over, but we also have new issues to face today, and liberal denominations, like the Episcopal church, are standing up to be counted just like those white people who came down to march in Selma. And all the while those who are more comfortable protecting the status quo, and those whose apathy and lack of courage and moral fortitude tacitly support them, continue to insist that those who are progressive in thier doctrinal and social point of view should be fenced out of thier own religion. This is the impetus behind all the squabbling over who or what Christianity is. That's why it's so important to construct a definition of Christianity that disenfrachises, and moves to a safe distance people who might disrupt the status quo.

Chris

Hi Chris, Excellent post. I'm not really sure we can call Christianity an ethnicity based upon the secularization of Christmas, but whatever floats your boat. I do agree however that arguing over the title Christian is not only a humongous waste of time but also distracts from and often goes against our commandment to love each other.

My post was not in defense of the title "Christian," but in reponse to the idea of someone complaining that Christianity has no meaning or distinction after gutting the main beliefs of traditional Christianity. Perhaps I read it wrong above, but it struck me as someone killing the lion then looking at the corpse and complaining: who could ever consider this dead beast beautiful and majestic? Sorry, I was just shooting form the hip there. That's what you respect, right?

I don't know where to put myself in the spectrum of Christianity these days and I don't know if I ever will. It certainly would be nice to be certain, but I have a healthy distrust of certitutde. I don't know. I don't think we can read the Bible on our own and come up with some 'plain' answers. You've suggested in the past that the Bible is an easy book to understand if one takes the time to read it. I'm not so sure about that. I do think, however, that I can come up with some living Christian principles, such as love each other, take care of widows and orphans.

I'm living in the tension Chris.

Christianity is, foremost, for the disenfranchised. If it's not, then Christianity surely is dead.

luna

[lunamoth]

What does it mean to be a Christian? To me this moment it means groping in the dark trusting in this one crazy flashlight called Love.

luna

[Thomas]

Andrew -

"If one Christian alone can constitute the vessel for Christ's Mission, then it should be very easy indeed to define what it is that MAKES this wo/man that vessel!"

By any rule of logic, yes.

And, should I fail to find the crucifix, cross or other emblematic proof dangling from this person's neck to indicate his or her allegiance ... how is it, that this person is Christian?

Actually Andrew, I'm not sure if I'm amazed by the naivety of that comment, or offended by its socio-political implication ...

Either way, as I'm sure this is not what you intended, and knowing your penchant for diversity of sources, I shall paraphrase the film "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre":
Humphrey Bogart: "If you're Christians, show us your badges!"
Alfonso Bedoya: "Badges? We doan need no badges! Ah doan have to show you any steenkin' badges!"

Whatever way you measure it - Christianity is a religion of the heart, but not of the heart worn upon the sleeve, or round the neck, or anywhere else.

If s/he simply says "I believe," then is there ANYthing - which you in feel that we can string along behind these words that will succinctly address the matter at hand?

Again logically, yes. The real question is whether you'll accept the answer, or continually try and subvert it?

And if so, what if that person suddenly converts? What is s/he declares that faith in Jesus Christ has been lost, and explicity takes the vows of the Buddhist laity? Church wipes, eh?

Then, logically, s/he ceases to be a Christian ...

Ahhh, and what if s/he does NOT declare a loss of faith in Christ, yet takes these Buddhist lay vows ANYWAY!?! Then what!

Then s/he doesn't know what s/he believes in, obviously.

Not as sharp as I once was, when it comes to logic ...

Thy own lips have said it.

This thread is interesting to me for several reasons...

This thread is waning in interest for me, because whatever argument is offered you simply try to circumvent it.

Only one of them is the idea that I might actually learn - ontologically speaking - the answer to the question at hand.

I don't think so, you seem so focussed on the superficial and the exoteric.

Another reason, is that I think it will necessarily involve, at some point, sooner or later, even if it kills us trying .... a discussion of the virtues, qualities of character and otherwise defining traits of the Christian!

There you go again - superficialities and externals - 'virtue' 'qualities of character' etc., flow from the heart/will ...

This is what matters to me, and in the last analysis, from a practical point of view, to the rest of the planet ...
So now you speak for the entire planet?

But if it all falls back to "I believe!" - then I suppose we could stop discussion dead, right here!

It would seem so. Pity really, because that's precisely the point on which everything really turns.

Thomas

[Thomas]

On a more serious note...

Originally Posted by Thomas
Not quite - He is the incarnate Son - we are children by adoption - there is a difference. We are not the Trinity.

As an esotericist, and esoteric Christian, this is not quite what I believe. In fact, we are the Trinity! This could be approached from dozens of angles, but in simplest terms, I maintain (on no less than Scriptural Authority!) that in our highest Essence (sic), we are literally a Spark of the Divine Logos. This means that our Identity is not different or other than God the Father, 1st Aspect.

Well, whatever you consider yourself to be, your philosophy and your esoterism is profoundly flawed.You are assuming 'you' and the 'spark' are one, when a careful reading of the text will reveal that Christ is the life, and the light of men, which puts man in a subsistent, and not an equivalent, relation to Christ. It is on this single issue that I will face you down every time. According to your esoterism you claim not simply to possess Christ as your own, but moreover you possess Christ as yourself.
Which is dangerously and seductively close to the serpent's argument.

Working from the Prologue to the Gospel of St John, by your assumption, if you are the Trinity then:
"In the beginning was taijasi: and taijasi was with God: and taijasi was God.
The same was in the beginning with God."
John 1:1-2

You see?

"All things were made by taijasi: and without taijasi was made nothing that was made."

and so on ... nonsense ...

+++

On a philosophical note, esoterisms aside:

If God and man are synonymous, then God is subject to change, to addition and subtraction, according to the fluctuating population of the human race - which is not the God of the Bible.

In short, the Divine Logos is not dependent upon man for its Essence or Existence, whereas man is dependent upon the Divine Logos for his:

So again, your logic is as faulty as your reading of Scripture, and as you fancy yourself an esoterist I would suggest a reading of Colossians as a good corrective:
"For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth,
All things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all: and by him all things consist."
Colossians 1:16-17

Op perhaps Ephesians:
"As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.
Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:
Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us, in his beloved son.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his, grace,
Which hath superabounded in us, in all wisdom and prudence,
That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him,
In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him."

Thomas

[wil]

Namaste Thomas,

It is my understanding that over on the Christianity board I must tiptoe and you can inform Andrew or I that we cannot achieve the understanding and knowing of Oneness, I and the father are one...that Jesus did in our lifetime.

Hence the development of a place where we can discuss such grand possiblities. That not only Andrew or I, but you Thomas, and mee, and Ruby Sera, and Shadowman, and Terrence et al...can do all those things and greater as our elder BROTHER went on to OUR Father.

Somewhere along the line I'm assuming you don't say Our adopted Father....of course I could be mistaken.

Yes it is my understanding that over here inside the walls of this garden we are allowed to discuss our eachness of the allness, that we are the created and creator, that we have a stake in this thing called life and impact our world directly.

You may have another understanding, and that to is acceptable, but open for discussion.

[Thomas]

Fair point...

Pax,

Thomas

[Thomas]

Let me offer this:

"God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: "We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us".

From the Encyclical Letter 'Deus caritas Est'
Delivered by Pope Benedict XVI
St Peters, Rome, 25.12.2005

[taijasi]

Why I am taijasi/a


From the Encyclopedic Theosphical Glossary online:

Taijasa (Sanskrit) [from tejas light] Radiant, flaming, bright; sometimes the higher parts of a human being, such as the manasa-rupa, are designated as taijasa. A star is called taijasi, the feminine form.

In Gnostic or Theosophical fashion, the vehicle for the Light, is (also) usually spoken of as feminine (negative) relative to the masculine (or positive) source. Taijasa-vahan, might therefore be appropriate, as I seek, or aspire to embody the Greater Light which illumines my lesser being.

That Light I know, and refer to as, the Soul. It is the Christ within. A tiny ray of that light - only a portion, and the least portion at that - can be credited with providing me all that I know of as my `self.' The term antahkarana, or antas-karana figures in, as does the principle of ahamkara, the "I-maker." Due to ahamkara/ahankar, "I" seem to exist as an individual, separate, isolated person. In truth, this is not the case.

There once was one who said, "Though,
It seems that I know that I know,
What I would like to see,
Is the 'I' that knows 'me',
When I know that I know that I know!

The Christ Light (and Love) slumbers within every human heart. It is God's undying, abiding GIFT to us ... if we wish to invoke Grace in our understanding. Gratitude, of course, is always appropriate. The Lotus conceals the Jewel. The Christ self, as some put it, enfolds a yet subtler Spark ... of Living, Electric (Cosmic) FIRE - and THAT is our Consuming Lord.

But these Principles are not mine to gamble, or while away, use or dispose of at my choosing. They are the true GROUND of my being, as Yggdrasil, and as the Hanged Man. The ground, this planet, terra firma? It is the clouds, it is denser materially, but less substantial spiritually. It is "real," but it is transitory. Even Nirvana will pass away, but the Spark? That endures.

Like the visible manifestations that appear and disappear in the candle (sparks), our Monadic selves (see Liebniz) exist "only in the wink of an eye." The Flame itself, is undying. It only appears to fade out, relative to the external world. From our point of view, it is ignited and dissolved. But whence the flame, and whither?


From the Stanzas of Dzyan (which gives us Zen), we learn about the states of Being PRIOR to Creation - as indicated in Genesis:

Alone, the One Form of Existence stretched boundless, infinite, causeless, in Dreamless Sleep, and Life pulsated unconscious in Universal "Space", throughout that All-Presence which is sensed by the Opened Eye of Dangma. But where was Dangma when the Alaya of the Universa was in Paramartha, and the Great Wheel was Anupadaka?

Work with the Sanskrit, and it becomes apparent that this is not exoteric or conventional Christianity ... nor is it a Cosmology borrowed from the Asian Teachings, or garnished for new presentation. The Stanzas predate all other religious texts on the planet, along with many records which do not even as yet have a material counterpart - existing subtly, though permanently. God's `Book of Remembrance,' the Akash - and not the distorted reflection in the astral light - preserves the records of Humanity's origin, faithfully.
If our translations are imperfect to date, and appeal a good deal to the Eastern Wisdom, then perhaps we should rail against God for revealing something of His Majesty and His Innermost Being to these people, before their immigration to the rest of the globe, in this most recent world cycle. Let's not fuss at the Aryan Indians for being slow to disseminate the Wisdom.

If anything, it is understandable that a certain criticism enter in ... since many of the "chosen" could not preserve the Wisdom, could not follow the strict requirements set forth by Manu (Noah, Xisuthrus, Deucalion), and could not provide the seed or vehicle for the newer portions of the Human Family. If anything, criticize me for my failings, in this lastest turn of the cyclical spiral, to likewise embody the Planetary Soul - the Buddhi, the Christ, the true SELF of all.

But do please, try not to pick apart Christ's own Teachings, simply because the presentation does not suit. If by "subversion" you mean the undying effort to share something of the Ancient Wisdom with fellow seekers, aspirants and disciples ... then yes, Thomas, I do seek to substitute - for AN EMPTY VESSEL - one that is at least HALF full, of the Water of the New Era.

[I do not mean that the Catholic Church it an empty vessel entirely. The baby must remain, as we drain the dirty bathwater. OTHER vessels there are, however, some equally pure, and equally worthy, and equally authoritative, in the very least. The last few posts, from luna, Chris and wil, all testify to this. Increasingly, I do feel that the Episcopal Church is setting not simply a precedent, but the very example Christ is working toward, re the Christian Churches.]

That Water in the Aquarian Vessel is the same Love as Christ taught and shared at the Dawn of the last Zodaical cycle, but the times, they are a changin'. Pisces is waning. Aquarius, since 1945, is upon us. THIS IS the Age of Aquarius - astronomically, factually, scientifically speaking. The Catholic Church, OF ALL the Churches, should KNOW this - such have been her investigations into the Heavens, and questionings into the Order of things ... the cycles, and the dates.


But we CANNOT put New wine in Old vessels. An anecdote from Christ's encounters with the Sanhedrin, not found among the oft-thumped sources:

A Member of Cinedrion asked Christ:
“Would you come to us if we should ask you?”
Christ answered:
“Better would I go to the cemetery for there is no lie.”
A member of Cinedrion asked Christ, “Why dost thou not acknowledge us if even Thy father was married by one of our members?”
“Wait until your house crumbles; then shall We come.”
“Wherefore shalt thou come—to destroy or to erect?”
“Neither for destruction nor erection but for purification. Because I shall not return to the old hearth.”
“How then, not to respect your forefathers!”
“New cups are given for the feast. Respecting a grandfather, one need not drink out of his cup.”

Namaskar,

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Thomas,

It is my understanding that over on the Christianity board I must tiptoe and you can inform Andrew or I that we cannot achieve the understanding and knowing of Oneness, I and the father are one...that Jesus did in our lifetime.

Hence the development of a place where we can discuss such grand possiblities. That not only Andrew or I, but you Thomas, and mee, and Ruby Sera, and Shadowman, and Terrence et al...can do all those things and greater as our elder BROTHER went on to OUR Father.

Somewhere along the line I'm assuming you don't say Our adopted Father....of course I could be mistaken.

Yes it is my understanding that over here inside the walls of this garden we are allowed to discuss our eachness of the allness, that we are the created and creator, that we have a stake in this thing called life and impact our world directly.

You may have another understanding, and that to is acceptable, but open for discussion.

One can consider the "other" board from one of two perspectives Wil.

Never let a bull run through a china shop, or

Never pit a speed boat against a loggerhead.

Either way, the aggressor loses.