Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Esoteric/Mystic/Experiential Christianity
Contents
Correction of literalist Christian
statements of belief
Summary explanation of mystical
Christianity
Colorful allegorical/mystic flavor
of pre-Reformation Christianity.
Evidence concerning Mythic-experiencing
Allegory
Esotericism, the truly catholic
(universal) religion
Esoteric Christianity and religious
pluralism
Esoteric theory of Christianity is
independent of beliefs of particular original Christians
Steiner: Christianity as Mystical
Fact
Ruling, popular, and mystic classes
>From:
nuovomondo1000
>Sent:
Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:21 AM
>To:
determinism~at~yahoogroups.com
>Subject:
[Determinism] Christmas 2003 - Dialogue about Jesus Christ
>Jesus
defeated death not for him but for all of us. In order to open to all us the
door towards a happy eternity. He defeated death to let us win that
"useless passion" that is the short life on earth, opening
prospectives of infinite when every way seemed closed by the black wall of a
final and inevitable end. Here we will talk about His Resurrection, trying to
answer some questions as the ones which follow for example:
>- Why
can we understand the sense of our life only thinking of eternity ?
>- What
are the reasons of our Faith?
>- And
what about people who do not have Faith?
>- Why
death?
>- Can
reason and common sense help us in our Faith?
>- What
is the mistake in the hypothesis which deny Jesus Christ?
http://www.lorenzocrescini.it/dialogue
ricercapap
at lorenzocrescini.it
Jesus is
nothing other than the allegorical metaphor for the realization that the cosmos
is deterministic. To experientially
realize determinism in the intense mystic altered state is to sacrifice one's
lower self-conception. Resurrection is
not something that happens after literal bodily death, but rather, after mystic
ego death brought about through eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood,
where these are nothing other than allegorical metaphors for visionary plants
such as datura.
To enter
the hidden kingdom of God is nothing other than being intimately familiar with
the experience of cosmic determinism and recovering from such an overwhelming
experience, with one's worldmodel revised, purified of the freewill delusion,
which is sin. The devil is nothing
other than an allegorization of the sense of powerful personal agency based on
the freewill delusion.
Marc
wrote:
>>It
is almost obvious to a majority that the bible should be taken not
literally. If it is or isn't, is
perhaps irrelevant, Jesus' teachings that I remember certainly appear
deterministic.
>>"Turn
the other cheek" , for me is an example of a nfw standpoint. To blame and react in any real sense to the
wrongdoings of another, within a determinstic reality is futile in the extreme.
Another aspect of the paradox and absurdity of this.
Michael
wrote:
>>>To
experientially realize determinism in the intense mystic altered state is to
sacrifice one's lower self-conception.
>>Sacrifice
is perhaps not the correct term. To sacrifice is to give 'willingly'.
It was a
subject of theological debate, how and whether the will is involved in regeneration. Jesus and Greek sacrifices were defined as
giving themselves as a willing sacrifice. The will is turned and made to will
the sacrifice of the lower self. The
issue is not whether willingly, but rather, the nature of will: whether it is
purely self-initiated by the person, or moved and turned by the cosmos (or by a
benevolent transcendent mysterious hidden controller outside the cosmic
deterministic block).
>>Even
from a non no-free-will reference point, it does not follow that the intense
mystic altered state is requested, wanted, asked for at any level of
consciouness.
That
viewpoint has it all backwards.
Historically, speculation about determinism was a product of the mystic
altered state. If the ancients hadn't
been steeped in the intense mystic altered state, they would not have begun the
discussion of determinism, and this newsgroup wouldn't exist (so to
speak). Determinism was never
requested, wanted, or asked for, but the mystic state experientially and
conceptually reveals determinism, which kills the sense of freewill agency and
is a product of the cessation of the sense of freewill agency.
Knowledge
of determinism is a product of religion, or rather of the mental state which is
the perennial foundationhead and wellspring of transcendent or peak,
super-normal consciousness. Real
religion is determinism.
Like Greek
Attic tragedy, religious scriptures are deliberately designed to flip in
meaning from initial freewillism of the non-initiated, to the no-free-will
system of meaning, for the initiates.
Low religion reads scriptures in a literalist and freewillist sense;
high religion (which is actually esoteric/mystic religion-philosophy-science)
reads scriptures in a purely metaphorical and no-free-willist sense.
>>It
interesting to note your description of such an experience as perhaps severely
or infinitely traumatic.
>>This
is a viewpoint that strikes a chord. As to recovery I am not sure that there
can be recovery, just a 'new order' or the continuation of the continuum.
Apply the old
technique of using political/military metaphors to describe the cataclysmic
shift from freewillism (the original sin) to determinism: the old era/kingdom
was unstable, and a prophet can confidently predict it will fall in defeat; the
new kingdom (the determinism mental worldmodel) will last and stand forever,
and this revolution is led by a divine king, a true military Caesar/emperor,
and those in this victorious kingdom are imperishable/immortal, unlike the
doomed freewillists in the old kingdom.
The Rush
album 2112, side 1, starts and ends with the mystic apocalyptic determinism
revolution:
>And
the meek (no-free-willists) shall inherit the earth
>We
have (falsely) assumed control (our freewill controllership)
This set
of ideas (the entheogen determinism theory of religion) is my original theory,
which I have published provably in the newsgroup archives since 1995 or so, and
discussed at the WELL since around 1990.
A clear,
concise explication of mystical Christianity, conveyed in a compelling rational
manner
The best
way to truly explain mystical Christianity in summary would be to present a
summary of the completely modern, non-metaphorical description of the core
theory of initiation into transcendent knowledge, and then explain how that
core model maps to all initiation schools, and how it maps to Christianity in
particular.
Initiation
systems including authentic Christianity are more or less distorted forms of
using a series of visionary plant-induced mystic state sessions to loosen
cognitive associations in order to progressively transform the mind's mental
worldmodel from the naive freewillist mental worldmodel to the no-free-will
worldmodel -- from the egoic to the transcendent worldmodel or interpretive
framework.
Each
visionary plant session is temporary but results in a permanent partial
transformation of the mind's worldmodel.
Religious myth and philosophy, such as astrotheology or sacred
mathematics, is a metaphorical handle to express and convey, more or less
indirectly, the insights and experiences of the mystic state, including the
relationship between time, self, will, control, world.
There are
two perspectives innate in the mind, producing two complementary worldmodels:
the tight-cognitive-binding perspective is that of plurality, separateness,
time flow, open future, and metaphysically free will. The loose-cognitive-binding perspective is that of unity,
nonduality, tenseless time or timelessness, closed and preexisting future, and
no-free-will (block-universe determinism).
The return
to the ordinary state of consciousness includes the permanent retaining of the
mystic-state worldmodel, in addition to the previous ordinary-state
worldmodel. The return of the ordinary
perspective and sense of freewill controllership can be ironically described as
gaining freedom and being born out from the deterministic cosmos.
The figure
of the arrested and self-betrayed would-be sovereign on the Cross is a
metaphorical symbol and a description of mystic experiencing: the experience
and insight of no-free-will. The narrow
escape from death, and the rising from among the dead, is a metaphorical
description of one's continued life after the series of mystic-state initiations.
The lamb,
such as Abraham's, of that of the Exodus, or Jesus, represents no-free-will, in
this mythic system, while the goat represents the freewill delusion. Throwing against-God Jonas overboard to calm
the storm is a metaphorical description of repudiating freewillist thinking in
order to avert chaotic self-control seizure in the peak of the intense mystic
altered state and bring a return to stable, practical self-control, now with
permanently retained divinely aligned thinking.
The
Eucharist is a visionary plant, allegorized as divine flesh that teaches. Baptism and all other water themes (covered
by Thorne) metaphorically describes the experience of visual distortion induced
by visionary plants.
Four key
characteristics of this model are: entheogen-based, no-free-will, rationality
of mystic insight, and nonliteralism including nonhistoricity of founder
figures. Lately a corrective idea that
constantly arises as I read books is *experience* - myth is *description* of
*experience*, experience interwoven with conceptual insight. The *experience* factor is not emphasized
nearly enough in theories such as the astrotheology explanation of Christian
myth.
Much myth
is a metaphorical description of experience, not a mere symbol of a concept or
relationship. Christian mystical
intercourse metaphors also describe mystic-state experiencing -- feeling and
bodily sense. Visionary plants are
indicated metaphorically by garden, vine, wine, breaking bread, feast, incense,
and banquet.
For more
information, a summary of the core theory, expressed directly in terms of
philosophy but barely mapped to any metaphorical system such as the Christian
mythic system, is at http://www.egodeath.com/intro.htm. Descriptions of how that core theory of
transcendence maps to the Christian myth system are currently scattered among
my postings at the discussion group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath.
Christianity
is a large mythic framework with many key elements. In a compact summary, it is only necessary to explain a few of
the key mythic elements in terms of the mystical framework; the other key
mythic elements to reconceive must be covered for a theory to qualify as a
rational explanation of "Christianity", but they can be merely
listed, now that the viable pattern or type of reinterpretation has been described:
This
passing age vs. the age to come, end of time, apocalypse/unveiling,
kingdom/kingship of God
Jesus'
titles taken from ruler cult, which drew from the mystic state
The
blessedness of the lastborn son
Purgatory
Being
redeemed back (ransomed) as a slave/citizen of God rather than a slave/citizen
of the Devil
Possession
by a demon rather than posession by the spirit of Christ
Being one
in Christ vs. possession by multiple demons
Mary
Magdalene gnosticism/universality/division vs. Petrine literalism & ecclesiastical
hierarchy/exclusivity/division (2 opposed ways of dividing people into
saved/lost)
Martyrdom
Election,
predetermination, the elect/the lost
Angels/saints
vs. demons
Changing
from cursing Israel/Christians to blessing them
King
losing his kingdom after drinking holy wine at banquet; first, idolatrous king
losing his kingdom, second king gaining the kingdom
"Good
versus evil" read within a framework of freewill moral agency vs.
no-free-will gnosis. ("Good =
knowing transcendent truth/purity; evil = ignorance/impurity" was a
standard commonplace idea in Hellenistic philosophy)
What is
the value or appeal of mystical salvation?
Gain philosophical wisdom, mental integrity and maturity,
perfection/completion of psyche, reconciliation of mind with truth, account
satisfyingly for both modes of perception or cognition (ordinary and altered
state).
"people
soon become aware of that teaching of fate and gratefully submit to be moulded
thereby"
If Schop.
mentions garden, plant, drunkenness or abstinence (fasting) in addition to
"fate" and "instruction", that would be a clue.
I take a
different view on the flavor and character of medieval Christianity than
moderns project upon it. It is more
casual, more mythical, more spiritual, mystical, allegorical, metaphorical,
folk, colorful, esoteric -- not literalist -- and more entheogenic, more
Eastern Orthodox; more colorful, like Alexandrian mystery-schools, Hermeticism,
like Holy Grail, magic, alchemy, and astrology. Only later, with the rise of Catholocism as we know it in the
Protestant era, was the vibe of Catholicism as we now think of it created.
Out of a
colorful gnostic-esoteric loose experiential Christianity, much later such as
1500s a stiff, regulated, doctrinal, and rigidly controlled and text-based,
text-regulated Chrisitanity started.
Studying renaissance esotericism, it is odd how casual and unconcerned
esotericists are about the stiff gospel Christianity -- the solution is that
such Christianity didn't exist yet, but formed out of the gnostic esoteric
Hermeticism of the Renaissance or Middle Ages era -- that is, the few centuries
after the fall of Rome in 476 and the Reformation of 1525.
Edwin
Johnson basically proposes that there were 700 fewer years in that interval --
not a thousand years, but only 300 years between Rome's fall and the
Reformation. In this sense, the Middle
Ages did exist, but only lasted a few centuries. Between Rome and Reformation only a 333 years, not 1000; not a
millenium, but only a third of a millenium.
During
that third of a millenium, out of Western esotericism, folk-mystic Christianity
was born, finally in the end (around 1533) leading to the invention of the
Jesus and Paul pseudo-historical lifestories, back-projected and antedated to
the years after Augustus, which were then pushed even further back into seeming
antiquity by fabricating and inserting 700 phantom years.
The Turin
Shroud, Jacques De Molay (perhaps crucified and resuscitated Oct 17, 1307),
dualism, and the Cathars and Templars could fit into Johnson's new chronology;
the historicized Jesus figure and shroud was based on the torment of De Molay
and the Cathars/Templars, and was later back-projected by a thousand years,
finally becoming fully reified back in the ancient times when the rebellious
anti-Rome German monks and other aligned monastic orders in the 1500s set up a
paper-based battlefield which the Catholic Church was quite reluctantly drawn
onto.
Michael
wrote:
>>
What if your theory is "It's all mythic-experiencing allegory" -- can
that be shown false?
Peter
wrote:
>This
is an excellent question ... I suggest that you answer it. What kind of evidence could count against
the theory? And what kind of evidence
could count in favor of the theory?
It is easy
to prove that Christianity is *at least* mythic-experiencing allegory, and it's
easy to prove that no HJ is needed to explain the origin of Christianity. The hard-to-prove question is, in addition
to the mythic Jesus, was there *also* an HJ?
Was Jesus, in addition to being the cosmic Christ we can prove and agree
upon, *also* a historical actual particular man?
Can we
disprove "Jesus was entirely mythic-experiencing allegory"?
That's
like asking, "Can we prove that Jesus was *nothing but*
mythic-experiencing allegory?" We
can prove Jesus was mythic-experiencing allegory, but can we prove that he
wasn't *also* historical?
I state
these points because of the tricky language regarding myth. The conservative agrees Jesus was mythic,
but rejects the idea that Jesus was *only* mythic. The conservative Jesus is both "fully mythic* in a certain
sense, *and* fully human. Here we get
into theological type of linguistic distinctions. These ideas aren't tricky, it's just that the language is slightly
squirrely because it has some flexibility.
We *can*
prove that Jesus was strictly a mythic-experiencing figure. This amounts to proving that Christianity
does not require any particular individual Jesus. Point me to any man who existed, then remove him from history --
and Christianity could remain standing.
This is what it means to prove that there was no Jesus: to prove that
Christianity is in principle independent of any one particular man.
If
Christianity can have originated with no Jesus, then by definition, Jesus
didn't exist -- where "Jesus" is defined as "the man upon whom
Christianity depends and rests, and from whose life Christianity
originated". If Christianity
doesn't need any one hypothetical HJ, then by definition, Jesus didn't exist
other than the Jesus of mystic experiencing.
Christianity depended only on the existence of *types* of men, not any
one *particular* man.
What kind
of evidence can prove that Christianity depended on a particular distinctive
individual man for it to begin and take hold?
None can in practice, because we have coherent and satisfactory models
of Christian origins that do not need any particular man Jesus. Such a Jesus-independent model of Christian
origins does need a fair number of Jesus-type figures to have actually existed,
to make the story meaningful and not just a fantasy.
The
evidence has been laid before us fully enough already: there were many
Jesus-like men, more than enough to spur the creation of a Hellenistic
Jewish-styled, pseudo-historical version of the Mystery Religion. We have relevant evidence, we have relevant
theories, and this no-HJ model of Christian origins is fully coherent.
If we
hypothetically kick away and remove from history any one historical
Jesus-candidate that we have found in the texts, the no-HJ model of Christian
origins still remains fully coherent.
The Fundamentalist extreme insists that Christianity absolutely depends
on one particular man, but the evidence before us refutes that claim that
Christianity requires an HJ or it never could have gotten started and taken
hold.
There were
many partially Jesus-like men, but the accustomed Jesus-dependent Christianity
puts forth one Jesus more than is needed to explain the origin of Christianity.
>referring
to Andrew Welburn's book, "Gnosis:
The Mysteries and Christianity"
Welburn's
Beginnings of Christianity is so profound, it was challenging to get through,
even though clearly written.
>Welburn
shows the similiarities between:
>o Esseneism
>o Mandaeanism
>o Hermeticism
>o The Babylonian mysteries
>o The Persian Magi
>o The Mandaean Initiation Ceremony
>o The Annunciation of Simon Magus
>o The Essene Initiation Ceremony and the Poem
of Thankgsgiving
>o The Hermetic Poimandres
>o Christianity.
The Jewish
religion was *always* largely esoteric experiential mystery-myth; only
artifice, inherent in Literalist religion, makes the Jewish religion seem to be
different than the Hellenistic or other religions.
The
esoteric peak of all religions is one and the same; the mystics from different
traditions tend to all agree with each other.
Only the bottom of these mountains of religion, the exoteric surface level,
tends to create opposition between religions.
The
Literalist Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha are at war against each other;
while the Gnostic Moses, Mohammed, and Buddha are the same being, in agreement
with himself. Just as individual people
are esoterically the limbs of the transcendent One Being, so are the various
exoteric religions secretly, on the esoteric level, all the one true
religion. The one false religion is the
Literalist/exoteric religions (plural); the one true religion is the Gnostic/allegorical/esoteric
religion (singular).
At one
point Freke & Gandy say that the passover meal was artificially portrayed
by the inventors of Christianity as a sacred meal of the mysteries. But I emphasize that the right way to think
of the passover meal is that it was always a sacred meal associated with
mystic/mythic experiencing, to the esoteric Jews who probably created the whole
passover notion and story in the first place.
The
passover meal, correctly understood in its own tradition, really was a sacred
meal, to begin with. Portraying it as a
Hellenistic sacred meal was not inventing a distorting interpretation, but
rather, recovering the original esoteric meaning of the passover meal. In the Jewish esoteric religion, the
passover meal is exactly equivalent and the same as the sacred meal in the
Hellenistic mystery-religion.
This whole
notion that the Jews were religiously different than the Hellenes is exoteric
nonsense and dissimulation, sleight of hand, deliberate obscuring of the true essence
of both religions. We must keep
straight and differentiate socio-political concerns and motives from true
religion proper, which is experiential esoteric religion. Yes, socio-politically, the followers of
Dionysus or Moses or Jesus were rebels against the enemy kingly rulers in
power, and tend to be opposed to Ruler Cult.
But
regarding the esoteric dimension of religion, which is the truly religious
dimension of religion (as opposed to the socio-political dimension), there can
be no talk of one religion being against another; there is only the universal
and truly catholic church which is purely a matter of the highest type of
religion, which is esoteric religion.
On this reasoning, in a certain sense, it's impossible to have two
esoteric religions that are against each other.
It is
impossible that esoteric Judaism is against esoteric Islam, against esoteric
Christianity, against esoteric Ruler Cult, against esoteric Shamanism, against
esoteric Shinto or Zen or Hermeticism or Essenism. The esotericists of all these nominally "different
religions" all consciously unite into one body of the elect, the saved,
the true Israel, the obedient of Allah: there is no more "Jew" or
"Pagan" or "Christian".
Across all
esoteric religion or "religions", there is only one member: in Freke
and Gandy's broad sense, "the Gnostics", in the Gnostic Religion,
which is the true universal, "catholic" religion. Supposing that there is a particular
religious tradition called "Gnosticism" in a narrow sense, such
narrow-sense "Gnosticism" would include some elite who are true
esoteric Gnostics in the universal, multi-religion sense.
Freke
& Gandy's broad, universal definition of Gnosticism enables one to
self-identify as a "Gnostic" even if one finds the particular historical
forms of Gnosticism distasteful. In the
phrasing "Gnostic vs. Literalist religion", the twofold definition of
"Gnostic" -- broad and narrow -- is flexible but confusing, so it is
really clearer to say "esoteric vs. exoteric religion", or the nice
combined phrasing "exoteric/Literalist vs. esoteric/Gnostic
religion".
In
Valentinian Gnosticism, which may be the originally intended way of reading the
Pauline scriptures, "Jew" is a metaphorical code-word for
"exoteric/Literalist/lower religionist", while "Gentile" or
"Greek" is a metaphorical code-word for "esoteric/Gnostic/higher
religionist".
So in
Pauline writings, studying the relation between Jews and Gentiles is actually
studying the right relation between exoteric/Literalist/lower religionists and esoteric/Gnostic/higher
religionists, which fits with Pagels' excellent book The Gnostic Paul (a book
that I need to study again).
People
unfairly compare lower/exoteric/Literalist Christianity to
higher/esoteric/Gnostic Buddhism. True
profit lies in comparing all exoteric to all esoteric religion. What many end up doing in practice is saying
"my simplistic Buddhism is better than your simplistic Christianity",
when neither of them actually lead to transformation, revelation, and
enlightenment.
It can end
up as a battle of cartoon Buddhism against cartoon Christianity. We need a way to embrace and transcend the
truly esoteric/higher level of all religions.
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
>The
category 'no religion' is shrinking, rather than growing
That page
is really meaningless and worthless from the point of view of the esoteric
religionists.
Is
esoteric/mythic/gnostic religion growing?
Does the growth consist of Literalist religion, or Gnostic (esoteric)
religion?
What we
need is a graph of the global Literalist religion vs. the global Gnostic
religion, as defined by Freke & Gandy.
That site is crude, talking simply of "Christianity" as though
Literalism were the only possible kind of basis for all denominations, for all
self-described Christians.
"Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox" fails to capture this
key distinction.
Many
self-described "Christians" and scholars of Christianity reject
Literalism and would disown this site's conception of Christianity as
embarrassingly crude. The Literalists
assume their definition of the religion is traditional and comfortably dominant
-- they might find, however, that esoteric-only Christianity is growing in
popularity. Who gets to define what is
"normal" and "traditional" Christianity -- which one is
"orthodox" and which one is "heretical"?
The Jesus
Mysteries point of view may suggest that esoteric Christianity was a stronger
and more deeply rooted tradition than the Literalists admit or realize. Consider the book title, Stealing Jesus: How
Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity (
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609802224 ), or a variation which could
be Stealing Christ: How Literalism Betrays Christianity.
The
subject is defining "normal" Christianity is relevant to reconceiving
the Jesus figure. If gnostic
Christianity can claim to be the true normal Christianity, the true traditional
Christianity, this co-strengthens the Jesus Mysteries Hypothesis. In the Literalist paradigm of conceiving
Jesus and Christianity, Literalism is traditional and Gnosticism is abnormal, a
deviation.
In the
Gnostic paradigm of conceiving Jesus and Christianity, Gnosticism is
traditional and Literalism is abnormal, a deviation. We have recently entered the post-Scrolls era -- the discoveries
didn't *immediately* collapse "Christianity" -- that is, religious
Literalism; it's taking a few decades to work out the ramifications and
reconceive the origin of Christianity.
These pieces all work together, writing a new religious history.
The wild
ride for Literalist Christianity is just beginning -- the trends can't be
simply dismissed as "liberal apostasy". "The problem of religious pluralism" looms tall over
"the Literalist faith".
Related problems are "postmodernist Christian
scholarship". What are Literalists
to think when one says "I am a Christian, Jesus is my savior" -- but
intends an esoteric matrix of meaning, uttering statements within a fully esoteric
paradigm that embraces and affirms religous universality and pluralism?
These are
some of the overarching big issues connected with the question "Did Jesus
exist?" or "How are we to correctly think of Jesus?" A relevant book is A New
Religious
America: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060621583 (20th & 50th
most popular book at Amazon)
Another
popular book (34,000) is In Search of Grace: A Religious Outsider's Journey
Across America's Landscape of Faith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038097701X
Like the
so-called "Moral Majority" which some say is neither moral nor a
majority, Literalist Christianity for a time convinced itself that it is the
only way to think of Christianity, and is still telling that same story, but
lately there is a strong interest in exploring and aggressively touring
varieties of religion, and such an attitude of exploration seems to favor
universalist attitudes such as esoteric, or Gnostic, Christianity -- very much
including the new/ancient "denomination" of mystery-religion
Christianity, not just the more familiar and safely orthodox-controlled
"Christian mysticism" pictured as "Catholic mysticism"
which has been turned into a dull scholarly topic mixed with cloying emotional
poeticism: the ivory tower incarnation of New Age flakiness.
Mystery-religion
Christianity is separate from "Christian mysticism"; the spirituality
bookstores are packed with later, *mystic*-style esoteric Christianity, but
almost no early, *mystery-religion*-style esoteric Christianity. These bookstores *do* carry The Jesus
Mysteries, and Jesus and the Lost Goddess, and by the way some of Steiner's
writings on Christianity as mystery-religion initiation: studies of this early
brand of esoteric Christianity are so rare as to be an exception.
I'm
looking forward to a revisionist esoteric history of Christianity that starts
with Jesus the mythic-only Hellenistic/Jewish-esoteric godman/savior, and
follows a continued semi-suppressed gnostic/esoteric tradition all the way
through the mystic era and renaissance heretical traditions, through the
Radical Reformation, to the feral enthusiasm of post-Revolution tent-meeting
revival camps, to Pentacostalism (thriving), to today's experiential mystic
Christians of late modernity and postmodernity -- there is a book somewhat
along this theme. Erik Davis:
TechGnosis: Myth, Magic + Mysticism in the Age of Information (41,000 and
72,000 in popularity -- that's pretty popular). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/060980474X
I wonder
how he proposes that we think of the Jesus figure; I think the book focuses on
specifically Christian gnostic/mystic style, rather than world mysticism. He could be expected to portray Jesus as
some prototypical tech-Gnostic, some info-tech consciousness hacker who brought
down the temple mainframes.
Formulating
an Esoteric Theory of Christianity That Is Completely Independent of, though
Informed By, the Beliefs of Particular Original Christians and Later Esoteric
Christians
>Michael,
>Do you
want to say that the first Christians saw their godman [and reincarnation] that
[esoteric-only] way? That much in Paul says just this?
>Frans-Joris
Fabri
Michael
Hoffman wrote:
>To
fully establish the primacy of esoteric Christianity over Literalist
Christianity, it is important to both attain a beautifully self-consistent
esoteric understanding of Christianity that is independent of what any
individuals thought, and, establish that in fact the original Christians and
later mystics held just this esoteric understanding of Christianity.
I'm
clarifying "in fact... held just this ... understanding", for
accuracy:
The
original Christians and later mystics held views that approached, ultimately
implied, and pointed toward, this esoteric understanding of Christianity --
even if the view of any particular esoteric Christian fell short of this
understanding and missed this mark to some degree.
No
measurement of a star's position is exactly accurate, yet a set of measurements
converges on pointing to the star's actual location. Similarly, we may say with precision that the original Christians
and later mystics held views that *converged upon* the esoteric understanding
of Christianity and especially the esoteric way of thinking (mode of thinking)
which I defined at the start of this thread.
This same concept of conceptual convergence is used by Freke & Gandy
in their pair of books:
The Jesus
Mysteries: How the Pagan Mysteries of Osiris-Dionysus Were Rewritten as the
Gospel of Jesus Christ
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0722536763
Jesus and
the Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007145454
Freke and
Gandy explain that each Gnostic Christian was expected to hold their own
version of Gnosticism -- however, we may still, these authors point out,
accurately generalize "what the Christian Gnostics believed",
including *how* they believed, or the *mode* of belief they held, or the kind
of thinking they used.
At the
extreme, I aim to define an understanding of "true, ultimate, authentic,
original" Christianity that would still stand even if *no* early or later
Christian agreed with it. I don't want
to make true Christianity depend on any happenstance of mundane history. I seek a more scientific-discovery approach,
which enables us to discover an understanding for the first time, even if all
the "ancient authorities" disagree.
This is
thus an issue of the philosophy of progress.
A few centuries ago, ancient authority was treated as a limiting factor:
what was old was true, and there couldn't be progress of knowledge, but only a
rediscovery of what the ancient authorities knew. But the age of scientific discovery finally broke out of those
mental shackles, and declared that it's possible, and actual, that the ancient
authorities could all have been mistaken.
In
creating a modern science of religion, and progressing toward a new
understanding of what religion is really ultimately about, we must take the
ancient authorities such as the original Christians such as Marcion, into
account, without making a true theory of religion stand or fall based on the
accidents of history such as what Marcion thought. We can now figure out what Christianity ultimately is really
about.
If Marcion
or the original Christians don't fully agree, then too bad for that data -- the
theory remains correct. We cannot and
should not make the esoteric theory of Christianity vulnerably dependent upon
what we might discover about the beliefs of previous Christians, esoteric or otherwise.
This is
the same conclusion orthodox Literalist Christianity, as a paradigm, had to
reach in mid 20th century: orthodox Christianity as a paradigm had to be
explicitly severed from the accidents of any and all writings that could be
unearthed, or else it would remain in too tentative and vulnerable a
position. To strengthen the fortress of
the orthodox paradigm of Literalist Christianity, they had to in principle
declare Christianity to be completely independent of any and all possible
evidence.
So must
esoteric Christianity as a paradigm necessarily do the same: it must be held as
completely independent of any and all possible evidence, to be a self-existing
stable paradigm. However, independence
doesn't mean irrelevance; although the two versions of Christianity are
completely independent of evidence, the evidence is still relevant, but not
dependently so.
So the two
goals are distinct (independent in-principle) but interrelated: explain what
the esoteric version of Christianity must be, and, show that the original
Christians and later heretic-mystics held views that converge upon such an
esoteric version of Christianity.
The
orthodox, official, Literalist Christian would say: the two goals are distinct
(independent in-principle) but interrelated: explain what the orthodox,
official version of Christianity must be, and, show that the original
Christians and later orthodox Christians held views that converge upon such an
orthodox, official version of Christianity.
Michael
wrote:
>>To
strengthen the fortress of the orthodox paradigm of Literalist Christianity,
they had to in principle declare Christianity to be completely independent of
any and all possible evidence.
Scotty
wrote:
>This
was very neatly done by the literalists by saying the Bible was essentially
written by God, and no questions can be asked.
If esoteric Christianity is a creative expression of the perennial
philosophy, it can call up no such authority.
>Any or
all of what is unearthed is valid, I should think, and gives different shadings
to the general idea.
Esoteric
Christians say that the Bible was essentially written by the Holy Spirit and
can only be truly interpreted with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and that
the esoteric Christians possess the Holy Spirit, while orthodox, Literalist
Christians lack the Holy Spirit.
Esoteric Christianity rests its case on the authority of the Holy
Spirit, which includes reason and shines true light on historical evidence.
My short
review of Steiner's book Christianity as Mystical Fact
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880104368
As good
and prescient as Welburn asserted
I learned
about this book while reading translator Andrew Welburn's excellent book The
Beginnings of Christianity: Essene Mystery, Gnostic Revelation and the
Christian Vision. These two books
should be treated as a set. I was
apprehensive about reading Steiner, not wanting anything to do with occult, psychic,
or reincarnation ideas -- fortunately, none of these appear in this particular
book.
Highly
recommended to anyone who is interested in the original, esoteric forms of
Christianity as a Jewish-styled version of the Hellenistic mystery-religion, as
described in the book The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy.
In tracing
the origins and early development of Christianity, the term terms
"original" and "later" are too ambiguous to be used without
full qualification. The task at hand is
tracing the gradual coalescence of an apparently single religion and an
apparently single historical figure over several centuries, such as 100 BCE to
400 CE. This task amounts to coming up
with the simplest story of development that involves a few threads and a few
phases, without getting lost in complexity of detail.
A good
"starting point" for anything that can be called a "Jesus"
figure is the following sequence of overlapping phases, each one
"appropriating" or "co-opting" much of the previous phases:
o Esoteric Hebrew religion, which always
integrated political elements and mystic allegorical elements
o Apocalyptic Hebrew religion (rich
integration of political concepts/metaphors and mystic allegory)
o Hellenistic Diaspora Judaism
o Earliest Christian Gnosticism (~ 110-280) --
with continued presence of political concepts (archons)
o Relatively explicitly politicized Christian
religion with Jesus defined as anti-Caesar (~ 140-312)
o State Christianity (313) -- gradual emphasis
on supernaturalist Literalism, not mystic or political
These
overlap in time and occur differently in different locations.
To study
development and political/mystic development within Christianity, we should
also consider Heretical, 2-gods, Cathar, and Marian Christianity (1000-1600).
The
popular underclass isn't necessarily the creator of political/mystic-state
metaphor such as may be present in "Mary, Queen of Heaven" or
"Jesus, Lord and Savior", but they are the "body" that
provides numbers of adherents to a socio-political religion that is largely
defined by the "mystic class" -- educated scribes who are skilled at
triggering the mystic state and characterizing it in terms of interwoven
political and mystic/mythic metaphor.
These
scribal mystic allegorists -- "prophets" -- are often at odds with
the power-mongers who try to take over the religion.
The
working hypothesis and axiomatic framework of assumptions of entheogenists is
that mystic religion has always flowed from the fountainhead of an entheogenic
pharmacotheon -- a variable and open range of, often combined, psychoactive
plants, including opium, cannabis, psychoactive mushrooms such as Amanita and
psilocybin cubensis, belladonna, henbane, water-filtered ergot, certain strains
of water lily, datura, syrian rue, and others.
"Mixed
wine" was *the* wine and is defined as including indeterminate and
variable "herbs and spices".
On this view, "prophetic reform and revival movements" has
often meant an entheogenic revival coming from the educated and entheogen-using
members of both the ruling class and the popular underclass.
The
influence of this "other class" or "Class X" leads to a
more complex and realistic view than a simplified 2-class conception. It's easy to spot these three approaches in
Christianity and the War on Drugs (with interesting parallels):
o The truly ignorant mass populace who
believes Literalism and propaganda.
o The educated but immoral and opportunist
ruling class who promotes Literalism and propaganda certainly without believing
it.
o The mystic, monastic, intelligent class --
the heretics.
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)