Insight on the Writing of the Gospels

Quahom1 said:
No, let us "christians" be clear on this issue. God/GOD can do any blessed thing He/She/It wants to do. And we have absolutely no say in the matter. We can't tell God "no" (or I guess we can, for the lot of good it will do us). We can refuse to do anything...you are correct. But there is a price to be paid (such is freedom of will). Your poem means not much, to one who refuses to follow the will of God...particularly concerning the Gospel messages.
For some, the more personal idea of God serves well, while for others, a much more impersonal notion appeals. That is all I will say. In Hinduism, the difference is between Saguna Brahman, and Nirguna Brahman. You prefer the former, I prefer the latter.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "my poem" ... Rudyard Kipling's If? Regardless, please leave my relationship to God between me and God. My own, "personal" relationship (with my impersonal God) has little to do with the ideal of an accurate portrayal of Christ Jesus being the synthesis of Footsteps with If. I fail to see the how one particular instance could either prove or disprove the rule!

Quahom1 said:
The boats and helicopter issue was about blind faith, absent common sense...you seem to have forgotten that, unless you consider those of certain faiths absent of the same?
Blind faith, yes. Or the idea that somehow God owes us anything! Then again, if you personalize (read, anthropomorphize - i.e., project our human attributes upon) God, I suppose we can conceive of "Him" in darn well any way we choose, now can't we? Just seems like like Jesus of Nazareth would have a slightly better angle on things than either you and I - but then, I can really only speak for myself.

As for characterizing faiths, I would only go so far as to say that some are more devotional than others, while some are quite heavy on ritual, and others focus much on knowledge, or an intellectual approach. For some faiths, a blend of all three of these (and other attributes) seems to be characteristic. So long as we compare apples to apples, we're okay. As I do not really consider Esotericism (Occultism) a religion at all, I could only say that certain of these same elements are present, yet they serve a different function, even where there are similarities. The ritual involved, for example, is generally understood to be purely symbolic, and the heavy presence of a knowledge/jnana/intellectual component is in no way meant to preclude or substitute for a devotional component, if that is what appeals to the individual. But this gets a good bit away from the thread topic, and seems to be a tangent.

Quahom1 said:
You were using "Footsteps" as a point...:eek: That was a mistake.
??? I'm not sure I see the mistake. The poem conveys one angle on a relationship with Jesus of Nazareth/The Christ. I'm simply suggesting that there are several angles, and that Kipling's If helps to balance Footsteps, which is otherwise lopsided. Certainly I'm entitled to my own opinions, yet if you will reread my post, I think you'll see that I give good reasons why I see the poems as complementary.

To be clear, Footsteps can depict an intimate personal relationship with Christed Jesus, yet there remains the idea of duality, or of a distinction between oneself and The Christ. Kipling's If does not eliminate the idea of a relationship, but he shows that in our times of adversity, our relationship with The Christ can be characterized as a looking within - so deeply, so sincerely .... honestly and with spiritual determination ... that Christ Immanent is seen to emerge and triumph, with a final coming into maturity as "a man" - and the same type of Man as was Christ Jesus. Or at least, that is what I was driving at, in the comparison of the two poems. Sometimes I do not spell things out, and perhaps leave too much to guesswork. Apologies if I was sufficiently vague regarding the reason for bringing up these poems.

Namaskar
andrew
 
taijasi said:
For some, the more personal idea of God serves well, while for others, a much more impersonal notion appeals. That is all I will say. In Hinduism, the difference is between Saguna Brahman, and Nirguna Brahman. You prefer the former, I prefer the latter.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "my poem" ... Rudyard Kipling's If? Regardless, please leave my relationship to God between me and God. My own, "personal" relationship (with my impersonal God) has little to do with the ideal of an accurate portrayal of Christ Jesus being the synthesis of Footsteps with If. I fail to see the how one particular instance could either prove or disprove the rule!

Blind faith, yes. Or the idea that somehow God owes us anything! Then again, if you personalize (read, anthropomorphize - i.e., project our human attributes upon) God, I suppose we can conceive of "Him" in darn well any way we choose, now can't we? Just seems like like Jesus of Nazareth would have a slightly better angle on things than either you and I - but then, I can really only speak for myself.

As for characterizing faiths, I would only go so far as to say that some are more devotional than others, while some are quite heavy on ritual, and others focus much on knowledge, or an intellectual approach. For some faiths, a blend of all three of these (and other attributes) seems to be characteristic. So long as we compare apples to apples, we're okay. As I do not really consider Esotericism (Occultism) a religion at all, I could only say that certain of these same elements are present, yet they serve a different function, even where there are similarities. The ritual involved, for example, is generally understood to be purely symbolic, and the heavy presence of a knowledge/jnana/intellectual component is in no way meant to preclude or substitute for a devotional component, if that is what appeals to the individual. But this gets a good bit away from the thread topic, and seems to be a tangent.

??? I'm not sure I see the mistake. The poem conveys one angle on a relationship with Jesus of Nazareth/The Christ. I'm simply suggesting that there are several angles, and that Kipling's If helps to balance Footsteps, which is otherwise lopsided. Certainly I'm entitled to my own opinions, yet if you will reread my post, I think you'll see that I give good reasons why I see the poems as complementary.

To be clear, Footsteps can depict an intimate personal relationship with Christed Jesus, yet there remains the idea of duality, or of a distinction between oneself and The Christ. Kipling's If does not eliminate the idea of a relationship, but he shows that in our times of adversity, our relationship with The Christ can be characterized as a looking within - so deeply, so sincerely .... honestly and with spiritual determination ... that Christ Immanent is seen to emerge and triumph, with a final coming into maturity as "a man" - and the same type of Man as was Christ Jesus. Or at least, that is what I was driving at, in the comparison of the two poems. Sometimes I do not spell things out, and perhaps leave too much to guesswork. Apologies if I was sufficiently vague regarding the reason for bringing up these poems.

Namaskar
andrew

Your personal relationship with a god is not in question, nor the issue. I have no intention of questioning your personal view on a god.

"Footsteps" is a decidedly Christian poem, or prose if you wish, and as such there is nothing "lopsided" about it. In the Christian faith, the promise of the poem is that The God would be there for the man who accepted and chose to follow Him, no matter what, yet in the aftermath of death, the man questions that very same God as to why he (the man), felt alone at certain times in his life...that is to say that man feels isolated at times, and becomes extremely self centered (often out of self preservation). The God assures us that we were never alone, but when life was so hard for us, that we were ready to give up, we managed to make it through to a new sunrise and new day...and we didn't do it alone.

There have been times wherein I was desperately trying to save a life (I won't get into details as it is irrelevent), but I knew I could not do it by myself. I was so tired, I didn't think I could take care of me either. On one occassion, I recall getting ready to quit, and suddenly remembering that "poem". I remember asking "where are you...", then next thing I knew I had the drowning kid, and a big assed wave was pushing us both towards shore (very fast). I think "we" (kid and me) invented the precurser to "body surfing", back in 1983...:eek:

We hit the beach (hard), and all I could think of saying was "Thanks for carrying us". The kid had nothing left, and I had nothing left (jersey rip tides will kill you). ;)

There is nothing dualistic about it (the poem). We don't split our prayers between the Father and the Son. The poem/prayer is straight to the Son, as redeemer, and savior and GOD.

When we are at our weakest and lowest, that is when we are carried, never abandoned, but carried. And it is God who carries us. A very personal and powerful GOD, who takes extreme interest in us as individuals, to the point of doing for us, what we can't, when we are all used up...that is what the prose/poem means.

Nothing more, nothing less.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
 
Hey Q - remember the section the posts are in. This is Pagan Esoterica, not Christianity. :) Any resemblance to Christianity in data here is pure coincidence, and the Esoteric take on something is unlikely to map to
anything recognizable as Christianity (otherwise it would fit there not here).

Actually, good reminder for us all - consider where things are posted. A discussion within a faith-oriented subboard will and should primarily focus on the characteristics and viewpoints of that faith - not other faiths take on the same issues :)

... Bruce (who has to keep scrolling to the top for a lot of these threads to see where they are and post appropriately, which does cut down on the posting somewhat)
 
Hi brucegdc

This is Pagan Esoterica, not Christianity. :) Any resemblance to Christianity in data here is pure coincidence, and the Esoteric take on something is unlikely to map to anything recognizable as Christianity (otherwise it would fit there not here).

I accept that in the spirit in which it was intended - 'Pagan Esoterica' is a qualified esoterism, and so you are quite right in that regard.

I might add however that 'esoteric' unqualified (and it should always be qualified - esoteric is an adjective) should 'map' to every tradition.

That esoteric has become a noun - the esoteric - is in itself a failure to understand the mechanics of knowing.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Hi brucegdc

This is Pagan Esoterica, not Christianity. :) Any resemblance to Christianity in data here is pure coincidence, and the Esoteric take on something is unlikely to map to anything recognizable as Christianity (otherwise it would fit there not here).

I accept that in the spirit in which it was intended - 'Pagan Esoterica' is a qualified esoterism, and so you are quite right in that regard.

I might add however that 'esoteric' unqualified (and it should always be qualified - esoteric is an adjective) should 'map' to every tradition.

That esoteric has become a noun - the esoteric - is in itself a failure to understand the mechanics of knowing.
Indeed. I am "off the beaten path" which stands before me, plain as day. This, I admit. Yet when asked, does that path have a name, I wonder if many people would really understand, "Yes, Occultism." So, I sometimes say, "Esotericism," as the word is less misunderstood. But of course, give it time.

Anyway, like the branches of the tree in my icon ... and as the Highlander would say - "There can be only one!" :p And just as the branches diverge from the trunk, there's an esoteric aspect of pretty much every world religion/faith/tradition. Since I regard them all as having emanated from the same source/place/Being, I have no problem saying I'm an aspiring Esotericist. And leaving the rest up to guesswork.

cheers,

andrew
 
Main Entry:es-o-ter-ic

Function:adjective
Etymology:Late Latin esotericus, from Greek es*terikos, from es*ter*, comparative of eis*, es* within, from eis into; akin to Greek en in — more at IN
Date:circa 1660

1 a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone *a body of esoteric legal doctrine — B. N. Cardozo* b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group *esoteric terminology* *esoteric strategies*; broadly : difficult to understand *esoteric subjects*
2 a : limited to a small circle *engaging in esoteric pursuits* b : PRIVATE, CONFIDENTIAL *an esoteric purpose*
3 : of special, rare, or unusual interest

"Esoteric is as esoteric does", mamma always said.

I don't know where, exactly, the cutoff point lies for what is esoteric. All of Christian eschatology could be considered esoterica. All that "Left Behind" stuff sorta fits the description. I take it that in this contexts esoteric is a thinly disguised elitist put-down. Whatever...

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I don't know where, exactly, the cutoff point lies for what is esoteric. All of Christian eschatology could be considered esoterica. All that "Left Behind" stuff sorta fits the description. I take it that in this contexts esoteric is a thinly disguised elitist put-down. Whatever...

Chris
On this last point, I have struggled with this notion more so in recent months than in a loooong while. Folks at CR have helped me to see much better what perhaps could (in my own presentation) come across as elitism, and I have found myself re-questioning all sorts of assumptions and digging up conundrums that haven't bothered me for ages. What it boils down to ... is the simple notion that there are those in this world who know more than we do - the Initiate (from definition #1), of varying degrees.

I should like to make it clear that I have never intended to even suggest that I consider myself to number among such ... yet I do know that they exist. If there is any question that esoteric Wisdom exists, then on the one hand each of us must pursue that quest on our own, although certainly we may (and probably should) do so either as part of a faith community, or as part of that Group with which we have come to identify ourself (even if we do not yet fully understand the inner dynamics, nature, or function of that Group). But on the other hand, what are we to do to the extent that we have pursued, and have found? Did not the Master say, "Seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given, knock and the door shall be opened?"

The safest course is to begin with the Occult injunction: To Know, To Dare, To Will, To Be Silent! And certainly there is always a fine line that we must be careful not to cross. The challenge that I've come up against, and have been facing for many years, is accepting that actions speak much louder than words. And so, as is being demonstrated on the thread about Mother Teresa, the world has come to listen to those who "walk the walk." Interesting. To be Silent - and people listen. ;)

Mother Teresa is known, above all else, for her actions, including Love-in-Action, the greatest expression of Agape, or Compassion, which can exist. Sometimes, we simply call this Service. And it is the Way of the New Era. Christ preached this 2100 years ago, yet so few were ready to listen - and to apply his teachings. Every one of his closest apostles rejected, denied, or abandoned him ... save one, "the Beloved." What does this tell us about our readiness to walk the Higher Way?

What it tells me is that such souls are few and far between, even now, in this world. But in my experience, they do exist. I am confident that I have had the honor and privilege to have known quite a few in my life, already. And every single one, without exception, has been characterized by precisely the same Love-in-Action for which the whole world has come to know and revere Mother Teresa. To be certain, she must certainly be an avatar of a sort, perhaps a redeemer for Christianity itself. But she also serves as an example to us all of what we may accomplish. And the beauty of it, for me, is that she did what she did without becoming lost in dogma, in creeds, in petty disputes or bickering. She was 100% devoted to the Cause, and she proved something that will not only forever endure, but will, hopefully, continue to impact us as a living testament to what all of Humanity can accomplish, if we choose!

The very same Compassion, and commitment to the alleviation of suffering, which characterized the life of Mother Teresa, is central to the ideal presented by the Elder Brothers for literally millions of years - but especially in recent centuries. And every great soul who incarnated to help make the Great Ideal more concrete for us, has lived a life characterized by this same quality of Compassion. These have been the emissaries of the Brotherhood, and to strike a chord with the first post of this thread ... the Greatest Avatar of all to come to Humanity, the Christ, sent forth his would-be disciples as emissaries into many foreign lands - precisely to preach this same sermon of Peace, of Brotherly Love, and of Service to one's fellow man.

As evidence that His Return is already an accomlished fact, I point to the great gathering of youth 40 years ago, seeking as best they could to embody the ideals just mentioned. Fairly conditioned and distorted by the glamours of the astral plane, the hippies with their communes (Communities!!!) fell short of the ideal, beleaguered by drugs and a lack of organization. And yet they still managed to dramatically alter the course of the Vietnam War, with names like Arlo Guthrie, Pete Seeger, and the entire Woodstock concert immediately leaping to mind. Both before and certainly since then, many thousands of World Service organizations have come into being, as further proof that the same Forces of Love and Light are moving through this world now, as They once moved, equally openly, 2100 years ago, and many, many times before. I think it is a great tragedy - that so many have come to identify such Forces with one, single man. A Recognition of vital importance this is, surely, yet so many of the same individuals who raise Christ Jesus to Divinity within their own hearts and minds, do so at the expense of faith in their fellow man - or else would deny, in the same breath, that this same Christ Presence also dwells within their own hearts, their neighbor's hearts, their enemy's hearts, and yes - even in the heart of the most vile form or expression of evil that they can conceive. Easy it is, to love one's friends and closest family ... that isn't where the challenge lies. That isn't what Xianity was/is about, if I may be so bold (and I may). :D

I'm editorializing, and seeming to wander from the definition and significance of Esotericism ... yet since I have been reminded recently that deep down, Christianity and Esotericism are synonyms, I think all of this is quite relevant. We are grappling with some rather ominous forces in the world today, all of us. Every single one of us faces these at the individual level, where the battle between the Angel of the Presence against our personal devil is waged inwardly. This devil represents all which opposes our progress toward Divinity, self-understanding, and Enlightenment ... whether that be ignorance, oppression, hatred, war, materialism, or the many forms of personal evil & darkness with which we are all familiar. The same devil exists globablly, and with such large-scale factors mitigating against the Christ's Return, all of the Esoteric Brotherhood battles ceaselessly.

To guarantee the triumph of Love, Light & Purpose over evil, the Brotherhood has always stood with, and guided Humanity, just as the Christ within - the Solar Angel, as some call it - has always safeguarded the progress of the human soul, from life to life, until it reaches the final goal. That goal, is the same for an individual human as it is for the planet as a whole. There is but One Soul, and thus in a sense, but one human personality incarnate. There is One Prodigal, One Father, One Christ. As yet we do not perhaps look Heavenward with the same fixation of Purpose and determination which will one day be necessary, but the time is upon us when we must acknowledge the next step, and do so together! Christ's Return, the so-called "Second Coming" (of this Christ, yes, with many prior, and many hence) ... would not be necessary if there were no "next step." We can learn something about what that next step is for us all, for the planet, if we will take a look at our own lives. Vice versa, if we examine the recent unprecedented growth of and upon this planet ... I think we can learn a great deal - about ourselves.

This begins to say something about why I agree with the letter of one Teacher (a Theosophical Mahatma), which I read for the first time a few days ago, in which he states that as regarded by the Brotherhood, Occultism (Esotericism) and Christianity - are the same. I find that He writes as no other Teacher I am used to, and for being a Master on the Ray of Science, I am struck by the deep, abiding Love he demonstrates, and the great interest He evidences, when discussing Christianity. I find myself flipping through hundreds of letters, just to find what He has to say on the subject ... and it brings me Light, where perhaps this needed. Best of all, I am reminded of the Love, which is there - and which does grow, even while vast multitudes ... prepare for, and ensure, annihilation. :(

Namaskar,

andrew
 
Two entries from G. de Purucker's Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary are also helpful here:
Esoteric [from Greek esoterikos pertaining to the inner] Applied to the advanced instructions given to qualified candidates in Mysteries or schools of philosophy, first used popularly in Greece by Aristotle. Jesus in the Bible had teachings for his disciples in private, and others for the public, precisely as all other ancient religious and philosophical teachers always had. Esoteric teachings both were and are such as could not be understood or profitably received by those not previously prepared by study and probation. Exoteric or outer teachings were often given in symbolic language which revealed the esoteric meaning only to those who were in possession of the keys to interpretation.
and
Occultism [from Latin occultus hid] The science of things behind the veils of nature both visible and invisible, things hidden from the multitudes. In theosophy frequently synonymous with the esoteric philosophy or secret doctrine. The study of genuine occultism signifies penetrating deep into the causal mysteries of universal being; the occult arts, by contrast, include psychism, black magic, hypnotism, psychologization, and similar uninstructed or malevolent uses of astral and mental forces.

The term occult has noble, but largely forgotten origins. It properly defines anything which is undisclosed, concealed, or not easily perceived. Early theologians, for example, spoke of "the occult judgment of God," while "occult philosopher" was a designation for the pre-Renaissance scientist who sought the unseen causes regulating nature's phenomena. In astronomy, the term is still used when one stellar body "occults" another by passing in front of it, temporarily hiding it from view. Writing a century ago, when the word had not acquired today's mixed connotations, H.P. Blavatsky defined occultism as "altruism pure and simple" -- the divine wisdom or hidden theosophy within all religions.

As the study or science of things which are hid and secret, occultism is a generalizing term because what is hid or secret in one age may readily be in a succeeding age more or less commonly known and open to public investigation. Many things that in medieval Europe were distinctly secret and therefore occult, are today the field of scientific investigation; and what is now considered to be occult, if science continues in its progress and research, may in the succeeding age in its turn become open and matter of common knowledge. Occultism then will simply have shifted its field of investigation and study to matters still more secret, still more recondite, still more deeply hid in fields of nature which are now scarcely suspected.

Theosophy or the wisdom-religion is the study of the ancient wisdom of the gods, and comprises in any one period that particular portion of knowledge which has been delivered to those who study it; whereas occultism in any age is that portion of the ancient wisdom dealing with matters which at such time are secret, hid, and unknown to the multitude. Thus occultism is that portion of theosophy which has not yet been openly and publicly promulgated. Occultism is founded on the principle that Divinity is concealed -- transcendent yet immanent -- within every living being. As a spiritual discipline occultism is the renunciation of selfishness; it is the "still small path" which leads to wisdom, to the right discrimination between good and evil, and the practice of altruism.
I've taken the liberty of highlighting in blue what seemed most important, to me, from these definitions. Blavatsky speaks a great deal about the distinction between Occultism and "the occult arts," and contrasts these most sharply with The Occult Sciences. Two further definitions illustrate:
Occult Arts Blavatsky in "Occultism versus the Occult Arts" (Studies in Occultism), distinguishes between occultism (gupta-vidya, the path of wisdom) and occult arts (evil occultism, sorcery, black magic, spells, incantations, etc.). While true occultism completely renounces self, the occult arts are practiced with selfish motives or from love of evil. Even where there is no sinister motive in one who ventures upon the occult arts, yet he enters a field where danger and destruction threaten unless he is protected by a training in true occultism. He will arouse in himself forces with which he cannot cope, open doors which later he seeks in vain to close, and put himself at the mercy of evil wills probably stronger than his own.

Occult Sciences The whole range of the sciences of the secrets of nature -- physical, psychic, mental, and spiritual; also "called Hermetic and Esoteric Sciences. In the West, the Kabbalah may be named; in the East, mysticism, magic, and Yoga philosophy, which latter is often referred to by the Chelas in India as the seventh 'Darshana' (school of philosophy), there being only six Darshanas in India known to the world of the profane. These sciences are, and have been for ages, hidden from the vulgar for the very good reason that they would never be appreciated by the selfish educated classes, nor understood by the uneducated; whilst the former might misuse them for their own profit, and thus turn the divine science into black magic" (TG 237).
I would submit that perhaps 98% of the elitism that one might seem to encounter when studying true Theosophy, or true Esotericism, is projected ... or in the very least, a matter of perception. It certainly depends on which author one reads, but it is impossible to read a letter, teaching, or true account of/from a Great One, an Elder Brother, and genuinely experience the slightest ego, or vanity. I don't know, perhaps that is what upsets people. Or perhaps, just perhaps, the book has been judged sight unseen - let alone the pages, or their contents, from the appearance of the cover. :rolleyes: Indeed, - what book!?! ;)

andrew
 
I'd like to try and do proper justice in a 2nd attempt at replying to your comments, Q. My first msg was right-on, but somewhere I goofed (probably due to running a Beta OS!), so a week later I'm trying again. Let's see ...
Quahom1 said:
"Footsteps" is a decidedly Christian poem, or prose if you wish, and as such there is nothing "lopsided" about it. In the Christian faith, the promise of the poem is that The God would be there for the man who accepted and chose to follow Him, no matter what, yet in the aftermath of death, the man questions that very same God as to why he (the man), felt alone at certain times in his life...that is to say that man feels isolated at times, and becomes extremely self centered (often out of self preservation). The God assures us that we were never alone, but when life was so hard for us, that we were ready to give up, we managed to make it through to a new sunrise and new day...and we didn't do it alone.
Bah, the inspiration is gone ... but one thing that comes to mind is that we're (at least potentially) dealing with different conceptions of God. The Hindus talk about Saguna Brahman vs. Nirguna Brahman - God with and God without attributes, respectively. I don't think Kipling's "If" depicts a faceless, nameless, utterly impersonal God ... so the parallel is not exact. But "Footsteps" comes across to me as a very personal depiction of Christ Jesus. While I would certainly say that this is one wing of the bird of understanding (Him), my own experience has shown that the Qualities (Virtues) as demonstrated in "If" are equally "right-on" the mark. For example, in the first stanza alone, I am struck by the following:
Peace of mind and level-headedness amidst chaos and ruling out over blame-seeking,
Reliance on, and trust & faith in, the God within (aka, the power of the Holy Spirit), while surrounded by doubt ...
... yet utter humilty of spirit and a willingness to meet others where they are,
Patience, endurance, and the greatest of integrity of character which shows as Honesty and Understanding,
despite the pettiness of backbiting and the vilest of calumnies ...
And the greatest of strength while surrounded by and often the target of hatred, yet a strength which shows as a gentle Understanding, a Humility, and through the gift of simplicity.
All of these characteristics, or qualities, are suggested by the first stanza alone of "If." We do not pull this stuff out of our proverbial - umm, ear. :rolleyes: And virtues don't grow on trees. We must cultivate them, and this is precisely what one such as the Christ has done (whether on this planet or another, in this cycle or a previous) ... in order to attain His status. This wasn't among my points in the first post, but it is really a side point, a tangent. The real point is that when we draw upon the above qualities - not to mention those alluded to in the rest of "If" - it is the Christ within which will demonstrate, just so much and so clearly as we have invoked Him prior and consistently by the practice of these virtues in our daily life. He is there, ready to be called upon, but my point, is that He is HERE. He is never farther away ... than our own elbow. (And how often, do most of us look ... ahhhhhhh).:eek:

So, while for some the prospect of meeting Jesus of Nazareth vis a vis would seem to suggest that "whatever is in our heart" must somehow differ from the person and the being who stands before them ... the Esotericist will nod to the Mystic and to St. Paul in affirming - the Christ within, and the Christ without, are ONE. And for better understanding, I would find it interesting and helpful to go through the rest of Kipling's poem ... and see, just what kind of person is he describing - in the light of what I have suggested, and keeping in mind that he is describing a potential Christ.

Quahom1 said:
There have been times wherein I was desperately trying to save a life (I won't get into details as it is irrelevent), but I knew I could not do it by myself. I was so tired, I didn't think I could take care of me either. On one occassion, I recall getting ready to quit, and suddenly remembering that "poem". I remember asking "where are you...", then next thing I knew I had the drowning kid, and a big assed wave was pushing us both towards shore (very fast). I think "we" (kid and me) invented the precurser to "body surfing", back in 1983...:eek:

We hit the beach (hard), and all I could think of saying was "Thanks for carrying us". The kid had nothing left, and I had nothing left (jersey rip tides will kill you). ;)
Perhaps in some ways we take the aspect of Christ (Immanent) as depicted in Kipling's poem ... a bit for granted. :( Not that we can't count on the Christ within - in a way, that's just the point. Every bit as faithfully as the Christ from Footsteps will carry us through the rough spots, so also will the Christ from If come to our aid when we call upon Him. Remove those qualities, those virtues, that type and strength of character from Jesus of Nazareth ... and you have an ordinary, struggling human being - and a rather base one. Even the least among us has some of the qualities of Kipling's manhood - at least I like to hope! ;):) But grant that we all have that potential, that in some it shines forth as the Diamond Soul - not perfect, but well on the way ... and you open the door to the possibility that we, too, can do as did Christ Jesus. Not without Him, of course. So again and again and again, St. Paul's words ring true: Let that Spirit be in you, which was is Christ(ed) Jesus. It's "that Spirit" - which we're really talking about here!:)

Quahom1 said:
There is nothing dualistic about it (the poem). We don't split our prayers between the Father and the Son. The poem/prayer is straight to the Son, as redeemer, and savior and GOD.

When we are at our weakest and lowest, that is when we are carried, never abandoned, but carried. And it is God who carries us. A very personal and powerful GOD, who takes extreme interest in us as individuals, to the point of doing for us, what we can't, when we are all used up...that is what the prose/poem means.
I think this comes back to our conception of Godhood/Godhead. Nevermind the esoteric notion that "God Himself" is actually literally incarnate upon this planet - in an etheric form ... this will twist the mind into a pretzel (I've found :p). While I may certainly believe in such a Being, and acknowledge Him as my God .... my understanding of Him simply varies a good bit from yours. But what I think is important is that we both look to such a Being for meaning, for Purpose, for Love and for Light - and that we do seek to build a bridge, a relationship, back to the Father ... via Christ, the Intermediary. One very simple teaching and idea, amazingly different interpretations and approaches of various historical events, soteriologies, etc. I think so we don't lose sight of the One Robe, or fail to reach toward the Hem of the Garment ... we can't go wrong. :)

In Love and Light,

andrew
 
An excerpt from `Illuminations of the Mystery Tradition,' by Geoffrey Hodson (vol.2 of his esoteric diary) has much to say about the authorship of and by Matthew:
Geoffrey is shown a vision whilst in meditation and the receipt of commentaries on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 12. v.29. He sees a grey-haired old man of impressive appearance, wearing monk-like garments, seated at a trestle-table, writing. Beside him are some scrolls and many loose sheets of various sizes of manuscript. He refers to these, meditates a while and then writes. His mind is occupied with the idea that from many different accounts of the life of Jesus, oral and written, a consecutive story must be compiled. This is his motive and his mission. He works alone in a fairly large room, the windows of which consist of openings in the wall. It must surely be winter time for his fingers seem to be cold, and he pulls his woollen garment around him, ponders almost as if listening to an inward voice, glances at a page of manuscript and then hesitatingly writes.

He is a member of some community, a monastic order, I think, established some miles south-east of Jerusalem. He is greatly respected as an advanced human being, served and granted every instance. He has only to call out to obtain whatever he needs, and as I watch him he seems to have run out of ink. He calls over his left shoulder, points to the nearly empty ink-container whereupon his call is answered, and a further supply is brought. The servant, also in monastic dress, is most deferential and seems almost to walk on tiptoe as if ordered to make as little noise as possible.

Occasionally, the scribe walks about his room, looks out of a window absent-mindedly as if trying mentally to capture fleeting thoughts and to find appropriate words wherewith to express them. I see also that he is visited by people who have been collecting for him, and they repeat stories about Jesus which they have heard their parents and grandparents tell. As he listens to one such visitor, he nods in agreement as if the story told harmonizes with others, either oral or written. In some cases I see he asks his visitors to find and bring others who lived nearer the time when Jesus lived, and who can provide further accounts, stories, and legends.

The old gentleman's thoughts - as I watch him and even seem to hear him talking to himself, thinking inwardly - turn to the region of the western shores of the Sea of Galilee, as if to say, "There is the scene of so many related and recorded events in the life of the Saviour of men." Whilst he seems determined to be as factual as possible, I see that he is also an allegorist, and this presents itself to my vision of him as the sudden illumination of his mind, aura, and brain, even as if he were listening to dictated words which he writes down. I think he is conscious of his old age and even the approach of death, since he softly says to himself, "I must complete this task." I think his name is Matthew and if so, he may be the author of the original Matthew.

As I watch him writing, the sun has come up and both the room itself and the walls visible through the open door of the rest of the building become lighted by sunlight. There is a regular community here and nearby, a village, outside of which there are vineyards and other fields - very dry-looking but productive. Now he has finished writing for the time being and walked to another part of the building where others are working, and he displays a sense of humour by his cheerful remarks and evokes appreciative smiles and much nodding.

I observe a bakery and see some newly made loaves. Apparently peace reigns at this time, for I do not sense either fear or restriction of movement amongst the other people."
There are similar accounts of the writing of the Zohar by a group of Jewish Rabbis ... as well as various other accounts, some of Jesus as beheld directly, others both of and as inspired by, Archangels (`Devas'). These are all found in volumes I & II of Geoffrey's Diaries, as well is in many other esoteric works from the past 125 years or so.

taijasi
 
Back
Top