I like this here Shiner hefeweizen, myself.
When it comes to mysteries, I have been taught that there are
lesser mysteries ... and that these are quite accessible today, though by no means `mundane' in the sense that they must, should or can be boiled down to a
least common denominator.
There are, however, also the
Greater Mysteries, but these are something that are much greater than Christianity alone. And that has been my argument all along, as it will
always continue to be. The reason for this, is that I have
not one, teeny - even evanescent - shadow of a doubt ... that I am correct in this.
Christianity is as valid a means of approach as any other, though I prefer Buddhism for its ready rejection of anthropomorophism ... at least among the Tibetans, and especially the Gelug and Nyingmas. Does that mean I don't believe in
an Ultimate, Supreme LOGOS? Certainly I do believe in such ... yet the kind of hylozoism, or panentheism in which I MUST place my faith also tells me that the Supreme Logos has in Its purview, and for its body of manifestation, ALL OF COSMOS. And from what I hear,
"space is big - REALLY REALLY big." 
What can the
lesser mysteries teach us about ourselves, each other, and the world in which we live? Pretty much anything that is of immediate
practical concern. They do not stop there, however, and a sincere student can learn about how God's Kingdoms have been established upon the Earth originally, how they have progressed and changed over vast aeons (of time), and also how some which are
not even yet fully established (hmmm) are
coming into sway during this time - with Humanity's cooperation, that is.
The Greater Mysteries reveal to us our Identity, at a point far ahead for each of us - in our evolutionary trek, and spiritual Pilgrimage. In the meantime, I am 100% confident that we come increasingly under the influence of the Cosmic Christ, as this
Universal Presence expresses Itself (Consciously, Lovingly, Intelligently and with growing Power and Purpose) via
Sirius -- something the ancient Egyptians knew full well
tens of thousands of years ago.
That Christianity may have
absconded with some of this Wisdom might not have been such a tragedy, if the
travesty of even the lesser mysteries had not resulted. What is GOOD about what remains, in the
exoteric portions?
Perhaps the Four Gospels that were allowed to survived as
canonical, are a key to the real contribution that Christianity has made, and can still make, to Human culture. Though much has been adulterated and certainly misinterpreted, we have not failed to at least recognized and celebrate Christ's message of
unconditional love (AGAPE) ... and though we do not yet practice what we preach, we at least have some idea of the importance of
forgiveness. Seldom do we dare to assume that God actually wishes for us to practice forgiveness
exactly as we would have this virtue practiced
toward us ... yet by no other path will we finally be able to overcome some of the hurdles that currently divide our hearts from the Divine('s).
The
lesser mysteries teach us that the
Elohim rule or preside over other planets besides our own, and these are without this very solar system. No religion fails to convey this message, but the implications are too much for most folks to consider. That, perhaps based on fear, on 50s science fiction movies, or just xenophobia in general. Nonetheless, the teachings are there.
We are taught about the
exact conditions of life after death, how to prepare from the earliest of our years in the physical body, how to help others both during our years on earth and even after we have made our own transition ... and
just why it is that such a cycle even exists. Nowhere has the doctrine of Rebirth been denied from us, save until the ecclesiastical
`authorities' decided it was much more convenient (for them) to keep our focus on
tithing and
rigid ideologies that explicitly
forbid the investigation of the other Wisdom Traditions still in existence.
We know all too well what
extreme effots the church has made to extinguish the Light as it shines through other Sages, Prophets, Teachers and Saviors ... so why should
those who Know pretend that Christ's Revelation was the first, or the
only one that matters? It has always been known that there is a Cosmic Christ, and we do not need this Truth
repackaged in order to grasp its real significance,
or to
put into practice the spiritual indications (principles and guidelines) which are known to lead a wo/man to Salvation.
Best of all, the
lesser mysteries provide us with indication of why Humanity is here to begin with, how we have
evolved - both materially and Spiritually - to our present conditions (for better and for worse), and
where it is we are headed, again both materially and spiritually speaking -- as well as
how we can reach our Goal(s) most effectively, with the least suffering for the planet and all Kingdoms hereupon.
Deny us this knowledge, this
potential Wisdom (since Wisdom can only come through
practice), and whomever you are, whatever you are,
Good ceases to become your Master, and
Truth fast surrounds you as an enemy. I greatly admire those who work so hard for reform from within ANY conventional Christian viewpoint, with loyalties to the institution, or to some particular church or denomination ... but I think the Achille's Heel for many of these folks is that they
cannot see past tradition, past "what seems to work," simply because it has (supposedly) always worked -- when others of us know all too well what price has been
paid by anyone who
dared to differ across the centuries.
Are we through paying this price? If so, then why so much
backlash when matters are brought into question? Why is it necessary to defend
everything about one's tradition, simply because
this is what has (supposedly) ALWAYS been done?
When the zodiac that is
carved into STONE is shown to the Christian, PROVING to him that nearly
every single sacred rite, belief or observance existed even tens of thousands of years before
Christ Jesus ... why cannot he simply
ponder -- upon the possible implications of this Truth? Why cannot he ask himself,
"Did the mysteries exist before Christ Jesus gathered his flock, and brought His new Revelation to Humankind?"
No one denies the Work of the Christ, save those who have only an axe to grind, or an ideology of their own to
hoist up the flagpole ... or who, themselves, have never stopped to ask,
"Just who was Christed Jesus, and just what did He accomplish, or seek to accomplish?" Sure, there is a great deal of literature out there which seeks to argue that Jesus was never a historical personage, that Jesus was
not at all as we have come to understand him, or even that somehow,
oddly enough, that Jesus was far less important than we
Intuitively KNOW to actually be the case.
I would not DARE deny the Christian the understanding, the very real REALIZATION (part of true
Revelation, but only ONE part of it) and the concomitant acceptance of
Christ's obvious spiritual importance to EVERYONE on this planet. But what I challenge is the attitude of
"my way or the highway." This is what underlies the arguments of some of us, and I am as guilty of this as the next person. I figure it isn't that helpful to
name names, but we do have folks at CR who represent several extremes among Christian viewpoints ... and also certain views
outside of mainstream Christianity (again, I include my own errors here) ... who seem
hellbent at times on simply
spamming their own viewpoint into predominance, or into acceptance. Why is it so hard to accept that others
do not want to
see things that way?
Coming back to the mysteries for a moment, I'll try to pull some of this together. Notice that when
such and such a topic comes up, there are those who seem to know all. They have so much to say, and so much to share, and at heart (at
HEART), there is nothing wrong with this. They may, or may not, be correct in their understanding ... and what is shared may or may not be accurate. It is likely
partially accurate, but I doubt any of us here is so well in possession of
Ultimate Truth -- either in terms of the
Greater Mysteries or even the
lesser -- that we can simply type up a post and have it ring out as
Gospel. Would that we all had such an ability, or level of understanding!
Still, we all have something to contribute, and
at times, it is probably true that some particular individual either
is in the spotlight,
deserves the spotlight - in order to get her point across, and share valuable,
very helpful information ... or in the very least, ought to be taken quite seriously, or perhaps just
more seriously than we might be accustomed to taking them. This may mean that someone you generally
don't care to hear from, or find yourself disagreeing with, has just made a
tremendously valuable, vital point ... and to refuse to accept this because,
"Oh, that person is a Muslim, oh, that person is into Wicca," is just plain prejudice, and ignorance.
But no one -- at least that I am vaguely aware of --
has the sole right to "hog the spotlight," and to demand that
I be heard, regardless as the circumstances ... or topic, nuance, etc. I will gladly take my back seat, you see, once I click the
`post' button -- and even that does not guarantee, or signify, that I have spoken
pure, unadulterated truth in my post ... though I will this much -- I certainly would never
intentionally post what I myself believed to be false.
This much may seem
for granted, and a given, yet I shall NEVER cease to come back to wil's wonderful
THINK guidelines ... as long as I have anything I feel worth posting at CR -- or even just the inclination to come here and read a bit.
Is it TRUE, is it HELPFUL, is it
INSPIRATIONAL ... as well as NECESSARY and KIND?
Seldom am I doubtful about the first qualifcation, but if I have to put my potential posts to the rest of the test ...
I cannot always be so certain. I sometimes abandon them altogether, and quite frequently edit them - even extensively. Were I to really stick to this guideline, you might never hear from me again ... but then, I do believe we
all have something to contribute, even if some of us (such as myself) might benefit both self and others by paying incredibly more attention to motivation and likely impact.
That said,
should I be afraid to share what I think about Christianity, both historical and
evolving or emerging?
Absolutely not. After all, each of us is 100% free to
take it or leave it. Hopefully, we feel not the slightest need to swallow things whole, nor an automatic, gut-level reaction of dismissing what has been said
out of hand, simply because our own viewpoint is different -- even radically so.
I do not expect most folks at CR, especially those with strong Christian beliefs, to
ever see Christ Jesus as some others of us do ... yet I still feel that there is much we can learn by an exchange with each other whereby
all sorts of possibilities are explored. These include similarities of belief and differences, points of intersection with
other religions (cultures, mythologies, ideologies) entirely, as well as any number of personal anecdotes, assumptions and insights.
For instance, I
take for granted as part of my own spirituality that Christ Jesus never intended, in the least, for his followers to
worship him ... or to come into the understanding that
simply through faith in his example, they might attain final Salvation or deliverance from a cycle of learning, spiritual growth and renewal. However, this is probably one of the
most basic tenets of modern Christianity, and as such, I realize many may celebrate it as
one of the Mysteries (whether they themselves would call it
lesser, or
Greater).
If asked, I can make it quite plain why
just such a `mystery' cannot either be explained, or entirely
nullified in one's individual belief ... precisely because
there is nothing at all logical about the suffering of one person (whatever his SPIRITUAL status) somehow substituting, or atoning, for the wrongdoing of another (much less the many billions of us).
Can I PROVE that we have things all wrong? No. And for those who claim this as one of the chief
articles of their faith, I'm not sure I have any real right to ... or need to. It is only when someone asks,
"Hmmm, WHY on Earth (!) -- much less in Heaven -- should ONE MAN's dying in ANY way affect the spiritual status of individuals living thousands of years later?" -- only when THIS question is asked of me, and an
open mind is also offered to me in accompaniment -- that I can really feel comfortable, confident and rightly motivated in the sharing of
another take on things, which makes infinitely more sense to me, both logically and spiritually --
and in fulfilment of both the
lesser and Greater Mysteries.
And in sharing, I cannot but preface
everything I have to say with,
"This is my current understanding" ... or, as the Buddhists say,
"Thus have I heard ..."
The moment I say,
THIS is how it is, regardless as to what others may say, I speak a subtle lie, even though I may not realize it, or certainly intend it, myself. And that is why I am not only skeptical, but
extremely reluctant sometimes to look into
what is so well contained, carefully - even jealously - guarded ... "within the box."
If connections cannot be seen, then I would suggest
we are not looking.
If no understanding whatsover presents itself, then I would suggest
we have not left adequate room.
I ran out of hefe a good while ago. If I
think about my post carefully, it might be shortened by 90% ... but, do forgive me, I really would prefer another beer.
cheers,
Andrew
