Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
08-02-2017, 07:29 PM
Post: #1
What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Hello Everyone – pertaining to what I think and will present in this blog, and why:

I have a cross-cultural heritage, was born of non-‘religious’ parents, a British mother and Indian father, spent the first 14 years of my life in South India.

Was sent to a kindergarten and school run by French nuns and fathers who (quite non-coercively, mind you!) introduced me to traditional Christian, ‘supremely’ running-the-show-of-Life-on-Earth notions pertaining to ‘God’.

Which notions I totally rejected as poppycock (or worse!) around puberty on being exposed to the gross extent of the poverty and suffering of ‘poor folks’ in and around the city of what was then called Madras. “If there was (such) a God, ‘He’ must be a f’in b*stard (lingo I picked up in Catholic School) ‘cuz he sure made a ‘bad’ mess of Creation; if the world, meaning ‘the human condition’, is going to be made any ‘better’, it was up to ordinary peeps like me and you who would have to make it so,” I thought, felt and believed.

As I was ‘gifted’ when it came to Math and Science, I decided to become a civil engineer and help ‘elevate’ humanity that way, that is till I was exposed to enough (more) of the world to see that human reproduction rates were so excessive that any such effort would consequently be like attempting to bail out a sinking ship with a bucket. (BTW, I was so ‘atheistic’ when I was in college that, in the one ‘religion’ course I enrolled in out of curioisty, I wrote a paper arguing that Jesus was a crazy schizophrenic!)

Basically depressed as a result of feeling/being completely defeated in terms of my heartfelt aspiration, I became a secondary school Science Teacher and later on a Counseling Psychologist – “I can at least ‘help’ a small number of peeps to live and enjoy ‘better’ lives in the interim (while humanity at large was on its way ‘down the tubes’, to mildly speak of what starkly lies ahead),” I thought felt and believed.

It was when I was in grad school that I was first became aware of the amazing (documented! REAL!!) power of hypnosis – i.e. focused belief and expectation, and of psychic ‘healers’ and ‘healings’ – not the airy-fairy delusional kind, but as evidenced by ‘hard’ (scientific!) data.

That was when I had an ‘Aha!’ moment as I realized that ‘prayer’ (i.e. focused[/u[ belief and expectation) was REALLY potent! - not [u]just namby-pamby delusional ‘opiate for the masses’ as peeps like Freud presumed and poltulated.

Since then my ‘God’ concept and ‘sense’ relating thereto has expanded in leaps and bounds as I read and understood what was referenced in various ‘esoteric’ articulations, such as in Seth Speaks (‘channeled’ by Jane Roberts), in The New Testament (that is, the words which Jesus is quoted as having actually said – not what others said about the man), and in The Bhagavad Gita (which may be thought of as kind of Hindu ‘New Testament’) – to name a few of the sources which have had a profound impact on me in terms of expanding my awareness and understanding of ‘psychospiritual’ (as differentiated from merely ‘physiosocial’) matters.

All that was back in the 70’s when I was a fairly young tyke. Wink Now, here I am at age 75, a relatively unknown author who finished writing a book called Godspeak 2000 (only available as a free pdf download) in 1999, seeking to share excerpts from Chapter 1 of a treatise I am in the process of composing, called “What Jesus REALLY Meant,” looking for feedback – supportive, adversarial, or merely curiously questioning – hoping that engaging in discussion in relation thereto will serve to stimulate as well as guide me in my efforts to complete the work (I have two additional chapters roughly in mind), which I also plan to make available a free pdf downloads, all part of a ‘stream’ of meme dissemination which I think (prayerfully ‘dream’ project) has the potential to beneficially (in terms of being an ‘evolutionary’ advance) infuse and thereby affect the lives of individuals and thereby, believe it or not Smile , the future of humanity.

Stay tuned for ‘substantial’ idea-presentations (I often think and speak of myself as being a kind of idea-‘engineer’). As I have said, commentary and engagement in discussion(s) – supportive, adversarial, or merely seeking to satisfy this or that element of anyone’s curiosity – is welcome at any point along the way.

Sincerely -

- David
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 07:55 PM
Post: #2
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Hi and welcome.

I am always on the hunt for new ideas to engage -positive, negative, neutral or all of the above. Looking forward to yours.

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 11:12 PM
Post: #3
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Welcome David.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 11:26 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 11:27 PM by PeterPants.)
Post: #4
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Hi David and welcome!


Have you heard of Jordan Peterson? he has a similar method of treating Christianity. I feel that he and you are both reading meaning and use into the topic, after the fact.
The way i see it, religions, like all cultural norms, are sort of adaptively selected. its no wonder that the largest religions of the world have beneficial ideas, if they didn't then they would not propagate successfully, but that does not suggest that the stories are remotely true.

So my question to you, do you actually believe any of it? or do you just see it as a bunch of very good and practical lessons?

~~~

when we enter a discussion on matters of discordance, we should search for truth not victory, In this manner we always win, there are no losers.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2017, 09:54 AM
Post: #5
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
(08-02-2017 07:29 PM)davidsun Wrote:  The Bhagavad Gita (which may be thought of as kind of Hindu ‘New Testament’)
Haha! Here's a joke that I like:

"The sole utility of the Advaita is that it's easier to drop a single concept of God rather than a complex network of such absurdities."

Funny, no? Smile Gets 'em every time!

Welcome, davidsun.

PS
Any symbolic significance behind you putting the word "sun" in your forum handle?

..
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2017, 03:02 PM
Post: #6
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Glad to see there are some eager beavers here.Big Grin

Because my writing basically reflects my aim to be a 'consciousness-raiser' in relation to what I consider to be seminal ideas, let me preface my presentation of excerpts from my treatise, titled “What Jesus REALLY Meant,” with something said in the book I wrote, stemming from my exploration of the God-concept:

Quote:Before getting into specifics, I must make a special point of asking you to critically examine and evaluate what I say because, depending on what you are accustomed to and invested in, the ideas and suggestions I put forward are likely to either seem more or less reasonable to you or strike you as outlandish, even inane. Whichever the case in any given instance, your awareness and appreciation of what’s at issue will not be increased unless you set aside any consequent tendency you may have to simply accept or reject statements I make* and conscientiously explore and contemplate their implications.

* Be especially wary of such tendencies when and where I discuss the pros and cons of propositions that have attained the status of dogma among those you strongly identify or counter-identify with, whatever the grounds for your so doing.

That being said, here are the opening paragraphs of said treatise, which I invite consideration of and discussion in relation to. Hoping for the very best in said regard:

=======

From his saying “This is my body” when breaking bread and “This is my blood” when pouring wine at what has since been referenced as The Last Supper with his disciples (see Matthew 26), it is clear that Jesus rationally grasped as well as mystically (that is, transpersonally) identified with the Oneness of Creation. If what he meant to communicate by way of such sayings had been truly apprehended, such utterances may indeed have been foundational in establishing an ecologically sane, holistically Life-augmentative civilization.

That was not to be the case, however. Because the beliefs of most if not all of those around him at the time were hypnotically rooted in projections that God (to wit, the progenitive Source and Sustainer of Life) was a singular, supremely dictatorial ruler who had especially favored mankind by ‘giving’ them ‘dominion’ over all other earthly creatures (see Genesis 1:26-28), analogous to the way kings of old ‘granted’ lords of old the right to govern less powerful folk living in their territories (as long as said lords remained loyally subservient in relation to said kings, of course), the people around him simply did not register and so could not even begin to comprehend the implications of the fact that such sayings by Jesus actually referenced the matrixial interconnectedness and interdependency of all being.

About his Sonship:

Making matters worse, as they then also construed his references to being “the Son of God” literally, instead of ‘remembering’ the factuality of above-referenced Oneness of Being as they were directed to (in Luke 22), when would-be followers subsequently gathered together for a ceremonial meal of bread and wine (which observance later became ritualized as The Sacrament of Holy Communion), they just imagined and believed the bread and wine to be miraculously transformed (literally transubstantiated!) into the flesh and blood of Jesus himself* who they idolized and proceeded to worship and pledge allegiance to as the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (I Timothy 6:15-16) heir of said ‘supreme’ God.


Quote:Sidenote*: Though such belief and practice is generally, presently at least, simply accepted without significant thought, question or discussion as ‘normal’, it generated quite a bit of controversy when the movement now known as ‘Christianity’ was just getting started as a result of its connoting a kind of cannibalism. Presumably, what is called ‘magical thinking’ (nowadays) led members of the movement to suppose that such ingestion would result in their physically ‘absorbing’ Jesus’ spiritual characteristics and thereby attain personal ‘communion’ with him.

What anyone thinks Jesus really meant when he used such and related phrases and why he or she imagines he chose to speak of God as ‘the Father’ and himself as ‘the Son’ (of said Father) will, of course, depend on his or her personal apprehension and understanding of metaphysical realities and ‘sense’ of what the mind-and-heart sets of the people around Jesus were like at the time. My own conclusions in this regard, which I proffer for consideration and contemplation, are that he used ‘the Father’ to reference the progenitive Source (hence, ‘the Creator’) of all existential being, and ‘the Son’ to reference the totality of said Creator’s Creation (d/b/a Creativity), in other words the Entity of Life as It exists and continues to express Itself in Being. Picking up at the bottom of and continuing from

Why did he choose to do so? I think because the people around him were much more likely to meaningfully and emotionally relate to what such Father and Son ‘figures’ symbolically represented and, consequently, pragmatically understand the nature of the relationship between said existential realities to functionally be as a result of having personally experienced parents and the blessings as well as the vicissitudes of being familial offspring themselves, more so at least than if he had referenced and spoken about such realities in abstract philosophical terms.

Just imagine the silently questioning, “What the heck is this guy talking about?” blank stares that would be on the faces of people in a (hypothetical) movie crowd-scene wherein Deepak Chopra (one of today’s preeminent metaphysicians), after being science-fictionally transported back to Jesus’ time and setting, verbalized the same sorts of things that folks presently throng around him to hear: “Pure consciousness is your ground state and it is a field of infinite possibilities!” and “The field is organizing everything in creation: the movement of galaxies, the movement of stars, the rotation of the earth, the cycles of the seasons, the biological rhythms of our bodies, birds migrating at the right season to the right place, fish returning to their spawning grounds, the biological rhythms of nature as found in flowers, vegetation, and animals. It is literally a field of infinite organizing power. It can do an infinite number of things all at the same time and then correlate them with each other;” for instance.

And contrast this with what you imagine the people who were actually there (around Jesus) then must have thought and felt on hearing him preach things like: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:7-11)

Even in today’s world, I submit, those who haven’t intelligently grasped the implications of the postulates and research findings of Quantum Physics to the degree necessary to meaningfully comprehend the way in which such particle-wave, vibrating matter-energy concept based reality-paradigm ‘explains’ why and how and things ‘manifest’ – and, because only a small fraction of our population is capable of appreciating such abstractions, this references most folks on the planet at present – are much more likely to mentally and emotionally ‘groove’ with and consequently behaviorally operate in a positively functional, holistically co-relative manner using Jesus’ archetypal parent↔offspring schemata.


=====

There are some hyperlinks inserted in the original chapter which lead to online pages which explain the meaning and significance of certain terms, for example the word ‘transubstantiated’ in the above text. Following up one these is by no means necessary to engage with my presentation here, but anyone who is curious in this regard may download a pdf copy of this treatise wherein said links are active may do so from the Articles page on my website.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2017, 03:47 PM
Post: #7
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
I happen to disagree strongly about how the various memes in the gospels and other scriptures you reference came about. But I am not going to expand on that here. Suffice it to say that while I am not a believer my take on things is totally different from any of the usual nonsense too many non-believers spout. But again, not here and now.

If you are interested in building a metaphorical/metaphysical imagery on which to build a guide or aid to living life as it should be lived, I am listening. I do not judge until I see the whole picture of which you have apparently only laid the groundwork. I will comment that it is reminiscent of ideas put forward back in the (in?)famous ‘sixties’, although generally not in relation to Jesus. None of them got much beyond the “Wow! Give me another hit” stage. Wink This is not to prejudge anything you may say. Like I said, I like to see the whole picture first before offering criticisms.

BTW I am intimately familiar with quantum mechanics and fairly well acquainted with general relativity for that matter, although at my age I would rather push words around than vectors and definitely not non-linear tensors. If you are intending to use concepts from physics solely for purposes of metaphor and imagery, fine. In that case, as with the scriptures, I will avoid unnecessary nitpicking.

So please expand on what it all means, hopefully at a less ambiguous level than Deepak Chopra. When reading the things he says, all too often I hear this voice saying “Wow, pass the pipe”. Big Grin


PS The convention on this site is to present all matters of discussion in posts. Links are fine, but not sufficient in themselves.

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2017, 10:44 AM
Post: #8
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:If you are interested in building a metaphorical/metaphysical imagery on which to build a guide or aid to living life as it should be lived, I am listening.
Yes, that is exactly what I am interested in doing.

Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:I do not judge until I see the whole picture of which you have apparently only laid the groundwork. ... I like to see the whole picture first before offering criticisms.
I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness and attitude.

Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:So please expand on what it all means, hopefully at a less ambiguous level than Deepak Chopra.
Will do. Please note: the next series of paragraphs I present will still focus on inadequacies and abused related to 'conventional' interpretations for 'background' contrast. Can only 'write about' one thing at a time, however. I assure you, I will get around to presenting and discussing what I understand Jesus' sayings mean in terms of the world/life/reality view which makes the most sense to me in fairly short order.

Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:PS The convention on this site is to present all matters of discussion in posts. Links are fine, but not sufficient in themselves.
I subscribe to such a pragmatic policy/approach myself - it is good to keep things in immediate focus for purposes of meaning-'concentrated' discussion. I only mentioned the availability of a copy of my composition which has information-elaborating links in it (because to include such information directly would involve too much of a digression from the main focus of my 'argument', i.e. thesis), and that only for those with an inclination to 'explore' such (secondary, IMO, because not essential to my 'argument') digressions because the idea appealed to them, like some 'hikers' enjoy exploring 'side' trails just for the fun of it and some 'diners' enjoy added taste-sensation 'side'-dishes. I do not 'expect' readers in general to be interested in such; such offering is only those who like to lolly-gag about. Smile
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2017, 11:51 AM
Post: #9
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Cool 😎

Looking forward ...

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2017, 07:33 PM
Post: #10
RE: What Jesus REALLY Meant (a non-traditional 'view')
Here, repeating the last paragraph of my preceding blog-post in this thread for context, I continue for the most part to place things in historical context. Please bear with me:

======

Even in today’s world, I submit, those who haven’t intelligently grasped the implications of the postulates and research findings of Quantum Physics to the degree necessary to meaningfully comprehend the way in which such particle-wave, vibrating matter-energy concept based reality-paradigm ‘explains’ why and how and things ‘manifest’ – and, because only a small fraction of our population is capable of appreciating such abstractions, this references most folks on the planet at present – are much more likely to mentally and emotionally ‘groove’ with and consequently behaviorally operate in a positively functional, holistically co-relative manner using Jesus’ archetypal parent↔offspring schemata.

Holistically co-relative insofar as they may personally be so oriented and inclined, that is. As I’m sure you know, the choices people make tend to be unsalutary and counterproductive to whatever degree their thoughts and emotions continue, as a result of conditioning and habituation, to stem from immediate personal-gratification seeking selfishness. This applies, to one degree or another, to every soul that is still in the process of maturing (spiritually speaking), which pretty much references everyone born on the planet, while still biologically young at least, because souls that have already matured, or ‘ripened’, to the point of becoming ‘perfectly’ (so to speak) holistic really have nothing more to learn and developmentally accomplish by way of incarnating as a personal-self locus in the context of a world comprised of sensorially separate nodes of Life, such as ours – except perhaps in exceptional cases, to munificently articulate the range of choices at hand and alert audiences to the consequences thereof as well as, by leading exemplary lives in said regards themselves, to catalytically spark the maturational ‘fruition’ of others at critical, ‘make or break’ junctures in history wherein those involved must either participatorily move ‘forward’ (in the context of Life’s dynamically evolutionary stream) by choosing to transcending selfish instincts and becoming more integrally related to others or spiritually regress and possibly even disintegrate (i.e. completely lose soulful coherency in relation to Life) if they ‘fail’ to do so.

Whatever the paradigmatic scheme of Reality (Life, Creation, God, Self‑Realization, Being-Becoming, Evolution, etc.) one subscribes to, the fact is that personal functionality and development may be ‘for better or for worse’ (relatively speaking) in It. From what Jesus said in response to his disciples’ asking him about his method of communication – “Therefore speak I to them in parables because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand … for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” (Matthew 13:13-17) – it is clear he was quite aware of and, because he understood the Life-Force in everyone to be self-determining, completely accepted as a given the fact that people who remained cold-heartedly ensconced in narrow-minded selfishness would not intelligently ‘groove’ with the universality of the truth which the familial Father↔Son metaphor he used representationally illustrated in any event.

Whether or not he foresaw the ways in which what he said would be misinterpreted and how such interpretation would be abusively wielded and what might therefore result is questionable, however. Quite lamentable consequences historically stemmed from and repercussively still continue to deleteriously affect and detract from the quality of the Life-experience and Life-expression of huge numbers of people because of the degree to which personal neediness and greediness and other selfish tendencies, which typically govern the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of social-fad and gang-mentality inclined ‘groupies’, resulted in absurdly rationalized misconstruals and grossly unconscionable misapplications of what he said cascading and running rampant.*


Quote:Sidenote*: What have been called The Holy Wars and The Inquisition are just a couple of the more glaring examples of said ‘happening’!

Not that there haven’t also been many enlightened interpretations and applications of the truth pertaining to Life by altruistically oriented souls who’ve independently digested and chosen to proceed on the basis of the holistic knowledge and self-transcendent wisdom they’ve garnered from what Jesus and his more exemplary followers said and did, mind you. But the historical fact most relevant to the point I am attempting to make regarding the ‘mainstream’ obfuscation of what Jesus actually meant to communicate is that, in the early days of Christianity, when it became established as a sociopolitical movement, people were so prone to being seduced and captivated by, and consequently zealously serving to bolster and promulgate, personal and group self-interest reifying rationalizations (to an even greater degree than they are nowdays, if you can imagine!), that, co-optively declaring themselves to be ‘true’ followers en masse, flag-waving ‘Christians’ passionately embraced and vociferously promoted literal interpretations of Jesus’ “Son of God”, “I and my Father are One” (John 10:31), and similar pronouncements.* More sensible, potentially truly enlightening interpretations and understandings of what he actually meant by them consequently got little or no ‘air time’ and even as of this writing are given little or no thoughtful consideration.

Quote:Sidenote*: Readers may wish to review the first paragraph of the About His Sonship section at this point since what’s said there highlights the sociopolitical power-grab aspect of such gambit.

In complete disregard and, in effect, eclipse of:

• the fact that there are numerous references to “the sons of God” (in the plural!) in the texts of [u]both The Old Testament and The New Testament, as in: “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” (Genesis 6:2); “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7), and “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Romans 8:14);

and the fact that Jesus himself argued that others could be legitimately described as having a godly ‘identity’ as well: “Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? [They] answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:31-36);

and the fact that Jesus (the gestalt of his spiritual consciousness, really) was also referenced as “the Son of man”, in many cases by Jesus himself, as, for instance, in: “He asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Matthew 16:13), and “For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.” (Luke 17:24) {by the way, as a matter of record, a perfunctory text-search on my computer identified about 88 “Son of man” references in The New Testament, in contrast to which I found less than 50 references to “the Son of God” in it, of which only a handful can possibly be read as having been said by Jesus in reference to himself, the rest clearly being attributions made by others};

in C.E. 325 leading ‘Church Fathers’, summoned to a council meeting in Nicaea to iron out their ideological differences and then conjointly backed up as a group by the governing Roman rulers, consolidated their ideological, mass-hypnotic group-think coup of Christianity with what has since become known as the Nicene Creed, which all would-be ‘Christians’ were thereafter required to publicly embrace and pledge allegiance to (they'd be summarily excommunicated if they didn’t!) which read: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten [a later revision changed this word to the phrase ‘the only-begotten’] of the Father; Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. …”

As is true of any amalgam of logically interwoven conceptual statements, this creedal declaration has many possible implications and so may be differently understood, of course. Undeniable, however, is the fact that it literally excludes any and all possible metaphorical interpretations of the Father↔Son paradigm for Creation, such as the one I proffer, which is that the entirety of Creation as an existential Entity, not the personage of Jesus himself, is what he referenced as ‘the Son’ when and as he spoke for said Creation – when and as he channeled* Its spirit, one might say – as a result of his personally, mentally and emotionally, choosing to completely ‘identify’ with It (i.e. with said Living Entity). I submit, this is the only way in which his saying “This is my body” when sharing bread and “This is my blood” when dispensing wine may be regarded as making real sense.


Quote:Sidenote*: Others have also spoken in similar fashion mind you, as they ‘channeled’ the spirit of Life Itself, variously referenced as God, the Self, the Creator, the Prime Cause, and the Father (the latter in the context of the above-mentioned paradigm). In Chapter 7 (of my favorite translation) of The Bhagavad Gita, for example, It is recorded as having ‘said’:
“Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and personality; this is the eightfold division of My Manifested Nature. This is My inferior Nature; but distinct from this, O Valiant One, know thou that my Superior Nature is the very Life which sustains the universe. It is the womb of all being; for I am He by Whom the worlds were created and shall be dissolved.
“O Arjuna! There is nothing higher than Me; all is strung upon Me as rows of pearls upon a thread: I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man. I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am the Austerity of the ascetics. … I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent, the Splendor of the resplendent. I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and … I am the Desire for righteousness. Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are all derived from Me.”

Alas, the organically interleaved nature of the Creator↔Creation dynamic we are involved in (yet to be elucidated herein) which Jesus metaphorically addressed using the Father↔Son paradigm remained beyond the comprehension of the majority of his would-be followers and adherents. Pretentiously ‘righteous’ proclamations pompously made on the basis of literal interpretations of his Father-and-Son relationship statements by ‘leaders’ among them pretty much ensured that there would be a complete black out of genuine sensibility in this regard in their ranks. And, as these interpretations became the only ones socially ratified and sanctioned, in due course the personalized, “sole Father-God and ‘His’ only begotten Son-Heir” narrative enabled those purporting to be their ordained ‘ministers’ and the ‘rulers’ whose power to impose their will on others said ministers ‘officially’ legitimized, in cahoots together claiming to act in said Father & Son’s ‘family’ name (i.e. on behalf of ‘Christianity’), spawned a wave of totalitarian imperialism wherein any and all belief systems based on any other conceptualizations pertaining to the Reality of Life were declared to be anathema and decimated as entire populations were then doctrinally brainwashed and militarily subjugated, turned into and treated like ‘sheep’ as it were. (I can just imagine Jesus jumping off of his metaphorical ‘seat’ in ‘heaven’ shouting a resounding “No!” upon seeing how his bucolic ‘good shepherd’ analogy (John 10:11) was connivingly co-opted and exploited for grotesquely selfish {as differentiated from holistic} purposes by priestly and ruling class members over a vast swath of history!)

The only stoppages in the above regard historically being in relation to populations which were militarily powerful enough to successfully resist and repel, or culturally sophisticated enough to otherwise neutralize,* any such attempt at subversive infiltration and domination, as was true, for example, in the case of Arabic speaking peoples who cohesively coalesced around the conceptual formulations and idealogical principles articulated in the ‘messages’ of an alternative Godly-Spirit ‘channeling’ prophet, namely Muhammad, who righteously criticized and rejected the above-referenced form of Christianity (which preached and promulgated Jesus-as-the-Son-of-God ‘worship’ and ‘obedience’) as just being another abominable instance of adulterous (for the purpose of selfish gratification) idolatry which insubordinately disrespected and betrayed spiritual values deriving from the ‘dictates’ of pertaining-to-any-and-every-one-without-special-consideration-or-exception holistic Truth.


Quote:Sidenote*: In contrast, Hinduism simply ‘absorbed’ the character of Jesus as being another avatar of Vishnu, thereby blowing the idea that he was the only begotten Son of God as well as the claim that ‘Christian’ church and governmental authorities were said Father & Son duo’s only legitimate earthly functionaries right out of the water (so to speak) without engaging in any ‘argument’ or consequent ‘fight’ in said regard whatsoever.

Unfortunately – albeit this characterization bears qualification because of the fact that there were and continue to be notable improvements in the quality of people’s relational awareness and consequent behavior and experience in many cases as a result of the growth and spread of the core teachings of both Christianity and Islam, and the reasonableness of the hypothesis that, given the primitiveness of the instinctual desire-systems that people were generally rooted in when these were promulgated, what historically happened was probably the ‘best’ that could happen under the circumstances – paralleling what happened in the case of ego-bound ‘Christians’ who therefore couldn’t truly relate to what Jesus’s holistic sayings really meant, passionately self-righteous ‘Muslims’ co-opted Islam, blind to the fact they were just as selfishly biased as said ‘Christians’ inasmuch as they followed suit by idolatrously sanctifying Muhammad as being more ‘god-connected’ than any other Prophet and adamantly asserting that their group-think interpretations and applications of his channeled messages (which were compiled into The Quran) and judgmental pronouncements (as compiled in The Hadith) were absolutely correct and final in relation to everyone everywhere for all time, in a similar (actually, in many cases I would say even more rabid), “If you don’t embrace and support exactly what we believe and dictate, you are not a true Muslim and so deserve to be berated and punished and, if you continue to believe and do something other than what we say is ‘right’, executed as an infidel,” sectarian fashion! Among other things, this set the stage for the historically brutally bloody clash between the two totalitarian-dogma embracing culture streams (namely ‘Christianity’ and ‘Islam’) which, despite the advent and influx of what’s been called the Age of Reason, wherein more salubriously functional philosophies and endeavors such as Modern Science* and Social Democracy* took root and spread, still continues to negatively impact the life-experience and life-expression of a great many people, often spawning a great deal of vilification and dysfunctional scape-goating in the process, all over the world.

Quote:Sidenote*: I will get back to discussing Jesus’ understanding of the nature of the relationship between That which creates and That which is created, between God and Man or ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ in other words. In this sidebar, to further stimulate and engage the attention of readers who may not have appreciated the caliber of his genius as yet, relating to what I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I submit that:
Modern Science, though it only blossomed as a philosophy and endeavor relatively recently, historically speaking, sprouted from his having seeded sayings like: “Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you;” (Matthew 7:7) and
Social Democracy, though it too only blossomed relatively recently, sprouted from his parable-izing: “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matthew 25:34-40).
(That being said, please note I don’t mean to provide anyone waving the ‘flags’ of Reason, Science, and/or Democracy with a ‘free pass’ of any kind either. Ideational concepts and constructs are just mental devices which, as in the case of physical tools, may be used for good or ill, or both. And the fact remains that we, as a species, still have a long way to go in terms of embracing holistic purpose and developing integrity in relation thereto. So watch that you aren’t seduced by highfalutin rationalizations in these regards. Because most individuals and groups are still primarily selfishly motivated, just as in the cases of ‘Christianity’ and ‘Islam’, these designations are also often co-opted and used to white-wash particular belief and value sets as being ‘right’ or ‘best’, as well as to discredit and dismiss differing others as being ‘faulty’ or ‘deficient’, in self-serving fashion.)

=====

The next post in this series will get into the nitty-gritty of my thesis, beginning with: Now, returning to the main purpose of this treatise, let’s set the record straight by specifically focusing on and contemplating what Jesus actually said about his relationship with ‘the Father’ (i.e. the spirit of our creative Source, a/k/a God, as in “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth,” John 4:24) when and as he transpersonally identified with and so assumed – one might say, he ‘became’ – the character of ‘the Son’ (i.e. the spirit of the Entity of all created Being, a/k/a Christ, as in “The woman saith unto him, ‘I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘I that speak unto thee am he.’” John 4:25-26):

I hope readers stay tuned for the presentation in this regard …
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)