This is a critique of Livergood's "Esoteric Christianity"
Before all else, a comment on language:
I begin here because Schuon is recognised as one of the pre-eminent esoterists of the last century.
As I shall demonstrate, the 'adequate reference points' are missing.
Often the 'trick' in sites purporting to profess 'esoteric Christianity' is that they use technical terms in such a vague and generalised way as to void them of meaning. As a result the reader is obliged to supply his or her own definitions, and by so doing, discovers that he or she is reading something that accords with what they felt or believed to be the case. Thus the reader erroneously assumes they have found something they are looking for, when in fact all the author is doing is mirroring their presuppositions.
Let me demonstrate:
2: 'A mystical teacher' ... what does that mean? In a post-modern context, mysticism has become a subjective ideal, whereas in antiquity, it was an objective reality. It's a nice term, but it fails to locate the 'teacher' in any tradition. Is he a Jew, a Greek, an Egyptian, a Persian ... each will offer a different view and definition of 'mystical teacher'. Which mysteries are being taught?
3: There were more than one person named Jesus ... perhaps the author is unaware of that? Is it Jesus ben Joseph? Jesus ben Pantera?
4: Again ... what realm? Context? The spiritual realms of the Jews, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Persians? They are all very different.
5: How does one define 'person' in the spiritual realm in question.
6: How does one define 'leader' in the spiritual realm in question.
7: How does one define 'servant' in the spiritual realm in question.
8: Context? Reincarnation? Transmigration? Metempsychosis? Apokatastasis? What?
8: Context?
So, in essence we have an introductory soundbite statement with all the right 'hook' words, but with no actual meaning or content whatsoever.
One might counter 'well, it's obvious', but is it? If, as the author asserts, Christ's message was in no way connected to the Hebrew Tradition, then from where does this 'mystical teacher' derive His message?
Thomas
Before all else, a comment on language:
Frithjof Schuon, Sufism: Veil and QuintessenceLike Universal Existence, which is its prototype, language encloses us ontologically in the truth, whether we wish it or not: before all words, its all-embracing meaning is ‘Be’; it is Divine in its essence: "In the beginning was the Word."
I begin here because Schuon is recognised as one of the pre-eminent esoterists of the last century.
Schuon: Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism.Formulation is not intended to be exhaustive – no formulation could be – but it does nonetheless provide an adequate reference point; in metaphysics, that is all one can ask of human thought.
As I shall demonstrate, the 'adequate reference points' are missing.
Schuon: Gnosis: Divine Wisdom... expressions which are merely logical do not always keep step with spiritual reality – indeed this is far from being the case. It is also a fact that the meanings of many words have shrunk to some extent with usage, or else that they have come to suggest associations of ideas that are more or less restrictive; nor should we forget that the modern reader has more difficulty in ‘reading between the lines’ than his predecessor of olden times, so that greater precision and more shades of meaning are necessary.
Schuon: Sufism: Veil and QuintessenceOne must know exactly what is meant by these terms.
Often the 'trick' in sites purporting to profess 'esoteric Christianity' is that they use technical terms in such a vague and generalised way as to void them of meaning. As a result the reader is obliged to supply his or her own definitions, and by so doing, discovers that he or she is reading something that accords with what they felt or believed to be the case. Thus the reader erroneously assumes they have found something they are looking for, when in fact all the author is doing is mirroring their presuppositions.
Let me demonstrate:
1: An approximation, OK.About 25-30 C.E (1) a mystical teacher (2) named Jesus (3) began to tell people about a spiritual realm (4) in which the person (5) who would be leader (6) must be a servant of all (7). He spoke of a definite re-birth (8) into a Higher Consciousness (9).
2: 'A mystical teacher' ... what does that mean? In a post-modern context, mysticism has become a subjective ideal, whereas in antiquity, it was an objective reality. It's a nice term, but it fails to locate the 'teacher' in any tradition. Is he a Jew, a Greek, an Egyptian, a Persian ... each will offer a different view and definition of 'mystical teacher'. Which mysteries are being taught?
3: There were more than one person named Jesus ... perhaps the author is unaware of that? Is it Jesus ben Joseph? Jesus ben Pantera?
4: Again ... what realm? Context? The spiritual realms of the Jews, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Persians? They are all very different.
5: How does one define 'person' in the spiritual realm in question.
6: How does one define 'leader' in the spiritual realm in question.
7: How does one define 'servant' in the spiritual realm in question.
8: Context? Reincarnation? Transmigration? Metempsychosis? Apokatastasis? What?
8: Context?
So, in essence we have an introductory soundbite statement with all the right 'hook' words, but with no actual meaning or content whatsoever.
One might counter 'well, it's obvious', but is it? If, as the author asserts, Christ's message was in no way connected to the Hebrew Tradition, then from where does this 'mystical teacher' derive His message?
Thomas