Symbolic act of Christ
-
@JPF said
"It remains, however, that not all desire this mastery, and ineveitably wind up supporting the higher ranks. The masses deserve Thelema, as the "Law is for All," but not all will "chance to abide in this bliss," as the vast majority of mankind enjoys its yoke, and would feel uncomfortable with the great resposibility (service) that comes with Kingship."
Not for quite a while.
I guess it's understandable that people want to think of these things in terms of their present lifespans. That causes lots of frustration and aggravation. If one thinks about it across centuries, independent of the person as whom one is presently incarnated, then the only things left are to act NOW in a fashion completely true to ourselves. (My main objection to many ideas presented in this thread BTW is that they would have us begin operating in ways untrue to ourselves. That's not the way to go. That's the way to abandon what matters.)
-
Wow, great discussion!
Re. hoi polloi - I'm of the opinion that "the Lord works in mysterious ways". The human being in civilised lands of today is already vastly different from his counterpart at the end of the 19th century. Child consciousness. Everyone is less mature (neoteny? interesting subject that), more playful, more creative, but also more prone to hissy fits. I hate the word "current", but I have to admit it's pretty apt. The change has already occurred, it's already happening. We here are merely specialists with a little bit of a deeper insight into it, that's all.
Re. the Christian thing. I'm deeply interested in Christian origins as a sort of third-rank intellectual hobby, and I'm of the "mythicist" opinion (also shared by Crowley and Motta). There was no human being called "Joshua the Messiah". What there was was a loose movement to exotericise the Mysteries, based around a Jewish god-man idea (Jews were cool, like Tibetans are cool nowadays). There may have been a loose biography to hang the philosophy on, but it was very vague and not everyone held to the same ideas. The strongly historicized Jesus myth we all know and love gradually got filled out, partly innocently ("but what did Jesus do in the war daddy?") and partly as a result of political shenanigans. The Roman branch of a divergent movement wanted to rein it in so the lunatics would pay their dues, so it invented the idea of the Apostolic Succession - i.e. the idea that the original founders of the movement KNEW THE CULT FIGURE PERSONALLY. This is the tail that wags the dog. Up that point, the invention of orthodoxy or literalism (which itself was no doubt fairly gradual, from about 70 (i.e. post-Diaspora) to about 150 CE (by which time the synoptics had been firmed up and Acts had been written) - up to that point, the Christian movement was extremely loose and diverse. Some were visionaries, some mystics, some theologians, some scripture-hounds, some philosophers, etc., etc. But it was all based around the idea of a Middle-Platonic "intermediary" figure, with Jewish (probably proto-Gnostic Jewish) roots. And even after orthodoxy got established in Rome, it took imperial edict to make it stick throughout the whole community (and even *then *there were holdouts).
ANYWAYS, the point is, "Christ in you" was always the central message. The "immortal" (eternal, Aeon) part of us that's a little chip of God. The Absolute is too vast to comprehend straight off the bat, but we have a hotline to it via our own inner essence, which shares a portion of it, communes with it, is "crucified" in this world (in matter) but is already immortal, already beyond death, already saved. Good news, sisters and brothers! (Basically a kind of Jewish/eclectic Greek non-dualism.) That aspect of it is still perfectly valid. What's not valid is the idea that we should be beholden to some entity that sacrificed itself "for us". That's the lie, the twister, the thing that distorts our psychology, that perpetuates the lie "That Thou Must Die", that self-sacrifice is a good thing, that we should remain ever so 'umble, not raise our heads above the parapets, not be rich, not enjoy our lives, etc., etc. Basically, the long and the short of it, and the dirty truth behind literalist/orthodox Christianity, is that what you end up with is people sado-masochistically fascinated by the image of the crucifixion, masturbating to it, becoming deeply ashamed of themselves, and turning to "priests" for "forgiveness" and becoming puppets of the "Jesus Christ" egregore. A very ugly affair, altogether.
But being a true, gnostic Christian is ok. I consider myself a Christian - as well as a Buddhist, a Daoist, etc. etc. I KNOW, I know there is THAT within me, the little me, that's a Big Me that's almost (although of course not quite, but close enough for jazz) God.
Hearken to the beautiful words of the Apostle Paul (well, beautiful apart from the clumsy translation, hehe
) from the Nag Hammadi collection, bravely squirreled away by some unknown, unnamed true Christian monks during one of the orthodox persecutions. This is the true, gnostic Christianity, as it was originally intended:-*... your light, give me your mercy! My Redeemer, redeem me, for I am yours; the one who has come forth from you. You are my mind; bring me forth! You are my treasure house; open for me! You are my fullness; take me to you! You are (my) repose; give me the perfect thing that cannot be grasped!
I invoke you, the one who is and who pre-existed in the name which is exalted above every name, through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, the King of the ages; give me your gifts, of which you do not repent, through the Son of Man, the Spirit, the Paraclete of truth. Give me authority when I ask you; give healing for my body when I ask you through the Evangelist, and redeem my eternal light soul and my spirit. And the First-born of the Pleroma of grace -- reveal him to my mind!
Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear (has) heard, and what has not entered into the human heart which came to be angelic and (modelled) after the image of the psychic God when it was formed in the beginning, since I have faith and hope. And place upon me your beloved, elect, and blessed greatness, the First-born, the First-begotten, and the wonderful mystery of your house; for yours is the power and the glory and the praise and the greatness for ever and ever. Amen. *
That's the good news, brothers and sisters. We are already "saved", it's a done deal, there is nothing alien in this Universe, it is our home. All the toil, the heartbreak, the tears, are as nothing, mere clumsy efforts by the Deceiver, matter, to make us believe we were trapped in a hell-hole. All is light, star-bright!
**It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.
Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!**
-
For what it's worth, and just to express diversity of approaches, I almost completely agree with George. I just also believed that someone also "lived the myth" - though perhaps not in every detail of the stories we have received.
For me, it's the idea that humanity has a collective unconscious. At times, entire people groups live out collective nightmares and hero myths. Heros, villains, and scapegoats appear, thrust upon the stage by the waking dream of the people. Crowley's life, with his Beast imagery from the Apocalypse of John, is a perfect example. Is it so difficult to believe that a similar soul who grew up with Jewish Messiah stories did the same - and was just as ably misunderstood by the masses who either rejected him or created fanatical versions of what he said?
There are times that I take great comfort that "one of us" had the Will to "live the myth" - in both instances. It blows my mind and both breaks and fills my heart for the tragic beauty of it: the Great Mis-Understanding. Babel and Babalon.
But some are determined create for themselves a nightmare of domination - even out of a hero/liberation story.
-
FWIW, another striking thing I forgot to mention, on this topic.
If you look at the history of early Christianity, sociologically it's pretty small beer for the first hundred years or so. No more than a few hundred believers, scattered abroad.
Now why does that sound familiar?
I don't think we should be concerned about numbers "joining our Church", we should just be concerned that the mass of humanity is doing well. Our own organisation as self-conscious Thelemites is just a leaven for that. Whether the mass is nominally "Thelemite" is of little concern (other than it would be nice for a little tip o' the hat to AC now and then - "in the night watch one shall steal close and grip thee with a secret grip").
In fact, I think that's precisely the mistake that was made in Christianity- to try and "force" the movement, to grow in numbers too fast, and to alter doctrine to suit that aim. It's not that it's a bad thing to want to see self-conscious Thelemites grow and prosper, but it's that we should let Nature take it's course. Quality is always better than quantity.
In Christianity's case, it grew only slowly and remained as a relatively small affair (a few thousands, maybe nearly 10?) for several hundred years, until it was "taken up" by Constantine. We don't want a repeat of any such thing. If our open, public religious ceremonies are beautiful and fun, if our works are good, our philosophy coherent, people will join as they will, and the numbers will take care of themselves, in time. If we apply the rules of good kingship as elucidated in the Dao DeJing it should be fine
(IOW, to get peoples' respect, and make it attractive for them to develop an interest in the religion, they must have confidence that we practice what we preach. We must be *exemplars *- we must practice and attain, so that we have something to show for our efforts, a difference in our bearing and personality from the norm, even from the sociologically "rebellious" norm - something inspiring to others, if we will. We ourselves must have *tasted *something of the cosmic and spiritual we recommend to others - we must have attained something, for our "message" to be spread by us in a wholesome manner.) -
@Frater LR said
"Is it so difficult to believe that a similar soul who grew up with Jewish Messiah stories did the same - and was just as ably misunderstood by the masses who either rejected him or created fanatical versions of what he said? "
I'm a mythicist as well. People see whatever they want to see in Jesus. You see a "similar soul" to Crowley, who was also "misunderstood by the masses". Elton John sees Jesus as a "compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems”.
Check out Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by DM Murdock.
**(http://books.google.ca/books?id=Iaqe9CG_s6cC&dq=christ+in+egypt&source=gbs_navlinks_s) -
Working my way through this book.
His major premise seems to be that "mythmakers" hijacked Egyptian symbolism and that the whole "Jesus event" never actually happened. The way he's presenting it so far makes it sound as if there was a secret cloister of highly intelligent people who constructed a new myth out of old ones in order to gain control over the masses. There is a strain of paranoia (? almost) throughout his entire presentation so far.
I absolutely love the information he is presenting, but where he sees a collusion even before Constantine and Nicea, I see the natural phenomena of synchretism surrounding the martyr of a mystic, perhaps even a master, whose Will was to set his people free from the politico/religious oppression that was rampant at the time. Yet another one of us lived the story of Plato's "Cave" and got killed for it. The martyrdom of a love-preaching spiritual liberator at that time and place in history set a fire in the collective psyche of the people - and as they tried to unpack everything that it meant, they ran across the archetypal story across all cultures. They saw him as a "fulfillment" of all the stories they had ever heard and where inspired and captivated by it. It made a mess of the Roman empire - this "kingdom not of this world" - and killing the followers for sport only beatified them.
He points seems to simply be - "they stole these stories from someone else." My point is that these stories are timeless precisely because they do happen. They happen in the psyche of those who seek enlightenment, and when time and circumstance are right, the populace also will externally "live out" these inwardly true stories. What gets suppressed in the psyche of an individual manifests externally in the life of the individual. What gets suppressed in the psyche of a nation manifests externally in the life of the nation.
Now, after Constantine, I will readily admit willful and knowing synchretism on the part of the political leaders. That's just apparent from the historical record, and the author demonstrates that as well. Before Nicea, however, I think it was much more unconscous psychic synchretism clustering around an actual historic event.
Ultimately, I guess it doesn't really matter and can never be known for sure. I don't need anybody else to believe that it happened that way, and some days I'm not sure I believe it happened that way either. But I do think there is value in exploring the idea that very large people groups share relatively consistent spiritual worldviews - and in the evolution of that people's worldview, psycho-spiritual transformation dramas get enacted on the large scale through historical events and individuals.
I had to develop that "lens" through which to view the world in order to understand Thelema and the procession of the Aeons. So now, when I point that same lens backward to the emergence of Christianity, the above hypothetical description of the "Jesus event" seems to come to my mind much more easily that any sort of cloister of colluding mythmakers with a power agenda. To me, that reads more like a sort of "classic fear" of the psyche than an understanding of how humans and religion interact and evolve naturally.
But that's just my two cents worth of thoughts about the book so far. I incredibly enjoying seeing the correlation of the Christian and Egyptian mythos. It's like the Christian era took all the same god-symbols and took out any potential for sex between the gods. Father - Mother - Child.... Never NEVER Wife nor Lover. And Conquering Hero gets pushed into the never-ariving "tomorrow."
At least until the Beast arrives on the scene...
-
A few other pointers for those interested in this topic:
Jesus Neither God Nor Man by Earl Doherty. Doherty isn't a biblical scholar, but he is a qualified classicist and can read the texts in their original language. This is an update of his earlier book, The Jesus Puzzle, which caused a minor stir in academia when it was published. Of all positive mythicist takes, this is probably the one that's most highly respected academically (not amongst biblical scholars, of course, but some historians have taken note).
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Deconstructing Jesus and Jesus is Dead, by Robert M. Price. Price is an ex-fundie hardcore biblical scholar, so he's probably the most "heavyweight" mythicist around, he can duke it out with any traditional biblical scholar (and has done, there are some amusing seminar clips floating around).
There are also books by G.A. Wells (probably the first writer in this revived tradition of mythicism - he started writing about this back in the 60s, when nobody else was at that time - he's since retreated a little bit from a pure mythicist position, but he's still pretty close to full mythicism); and G.M. Murdockas above (who is actually a *she *- Acharya S is her other nom-de-plume) and a few others (watch out for Murdock - her earlier books are pretty poor, scholarship-wise, but she has improved, and her recent books have drawn praise from Robert Price, who absolutely slated one of her earlier books).
One other writer who's more a traditional biblical scholar, but is pretty close to mythicism so far as standard biblical scholarship goes, is a good writer per se, and also very good to read to get a "feel" for the field of biblical scholarship, is Bart Ehrman (Lost Christianities is one of his best in this area).
And of course there's Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's books. They're great books to read for someone interested in Crowley, magick and mysticism generally; and I'd say they probably *do *have generally the right idea about what went on then (their ideas are *very *close to Crowley's and Motta's take), but their books have been heavily criticized for their (relatively) poor scholarship (not that they're absolutely crap scholars, but they haven't been as meticulous as they ought to have been, given the boldness of their claims).
-
Oops meant to include this in the previous post, but I got back to it too late to edit it. Doherty's earlier book, the Jesus Puzzle, is online more or less intact, plus loads of supplementary material arising from debates: here. I would say this is probably the best way someone here could get a handle on the whole thing without buying a book.
-
@gurugeorge said
"...and G.M. Murdockas above (who is actually a *she *- Acharya S is her other nom-de-plume) and a few others (watch out for Murdock - her earlier books are pretty poor, scholarship-wise, but she has improved, and her recent books have drawn praise from Robert Price, who absolutely slated one of her earlier books). "
I'm a big fan of DM Murdock. Her work introduced me to the astro-mythic aspect of religion and ignited an interest in occult symbolism. Yeah, Price wrote a scathing review of her first book, "The Christ Conspiracy". The most substantial criticism was that Mudock cited extremely controversial claims of parallels between Christ and other Gods without qualification (iirc). Much of her later work has investigated those claims in detail. I'd recommend "The Christ Conspiracy" as part of a larger body of work, but it could be misleading if read alone.
Frater LR, she does often frame things in terms of a conspiracy. That might turn some people off (the word 'conspiracy' is an allergen these days). I don't think Mudock totally discounts the influence of "natural synchretism" either, just that those natural currents were harnessed and brought to heel under the auspices of the Church. The political maneuvering didn't start at Nicea.
You mention how these stories are inwardly true; I'm guessing Murdock would say they are outwardly true as well, if seen through the lens of astrotheology for example. But if we're talking about literal history, it didn't happen.
Personally, I think the mythicist position has the potential to help reinvigorate Christianity.
-
" But if we're talking about literal history, it didn't happen."
There are a lot of stories that where added, but I think it's likely some of "it" happened. In that place and time, the Jews were in the business of birthing messiahs. The Romans were in the business of killing them. Usually, the messiahs that sprang up were warrior "kings." One, wasn't. The peaceful ones are the ones people pay attention to. Any angry teenager can use brute force and preach war.
Don't know why that part is so hard for some people to believe. "It" almost happened again with Gandhi, but by then, the "Empire" understood the power of a peaceful martyr and was more circumspect.
"It" did happen again with Martin Luther King Jr. in the U.S.
It's just that when "it" happened 2000 years ago in Judaism in the Middle East, it was religious in nature, and the archetype was already bursting forth into the consciousness of the people.
Eh... doesn't matter anyway. This is a different time and place.
-
@Frater LR said
"It's just that when "it" happened 2000 years ago in Judaism in the Middle East, it was religious in nature, and the archetype was already bursting forth into the consciousness of the people."
Here's a quote from Murdock's blog:
"Although many people believe evemerism to be a "reasonable" position, often expressing that, while they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, they do believe he was a "real person," the fact is that there simply exists no valid, scientific evidence for this "real person," such as any historical record or archaeological remains. Moreover, when the mythological layers are peeled, there remains no "historical" core to the onion. To paraphrase Massey, a composite of 20 people is no one."
-
Yeah, I got no evidence at all... at the end of the discussion, though, it comes down to whether you look backward in time and see spiritual revolutions being affected by secret collusions or by unusual individuals. If it happens today, it probably happened back then. If it doesn't happen today, it probably didn't happen back then. What still happens today is that individuals occasionally appear who revolutionize the status quo. What still happens today is that they get persecuted and at times assassinated for it.
There are many details from Jesus' life that are drawn from other stories. However, there also exists in the teachings of Jesus a unique and revolutionary divergence of spirit from the form of Judaism practiced in that time and location. Whether or not you believe the man Jesus existed, you absolutely have to admit that the spread of the so-called "teachings of Jesus," caused a theological revolution of the same magnitude as Buddha's revolution of Hinduism. [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]
Please feel free to cite an example, but in all my other studies, I have never seen any other historic report of a theological/spiritual revolution of such magnitude that did not center around one central figure and fountainhead of that new strain of thought. Spiritual revolutions don't happen in committee.
Since, in my opinion, the "complete collusion" hypothesis is the abnormality in the historical record, I'm the one asking for a record of anyone crying "Phony!" Christianity was a radical Jewish heresy! And in the Middle East, to this very day, they kill heretics. What archaeological evidence exists of any Jew reporting that the man Jesus never actually existed or was crucified? Where is the historic accusation of collusion on the part of the Jews? They're still around. They still have their records from those times... Where's the accusation?
In the absence of such evidence, I say stick with what normally happens. Revolutionaries appear and get crucified. Then they get sainted.
I don't know, man. That's just what happens. Seems simple to me.
-
" [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]"
Nope.
Christ could have been based on a single man. Or he could have been based on a group of men. Perhaps he embodied some groups concept of the HGA. Perhaps Jesus was based on Philo or Apollonius. Or a melding of the two and/or others. Was Mithra a historical person? Was Hercules? It's all speculative.
I don't think it matters that much, except that a mythical Christ takes Christianity firmly out of the literal realm and into the metaphoric/symbolic/allegoric.
-
@JNV33 said
"
" [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]"
Nope.Christ could have been based on a single man. Or he could have been based on a group of men. Perhaps he embodied some groups concept of the HGA. Perhaps Jesus was based on Philo or Apollonius. Or a melding of the two and/or others. Was Mithra a historical person? Was Hercules? It's all speculative.
I don't think it matters that much, except that a mythical Christ takes Christianity firmly out of the literal realm and into the metaphoric/symbolic/allegoric."
lol... awesome.
I think that the freedom provided by reducing Christ/Buddha completely to the metaphoric/symbolic/allegoric realm is precisely that we completely lose any sense of the literal. It's not an allegory for anything real if no one lives it or *has ever *lived it. It's just empty ideas with no basis in reality.
But if a story exists as an analogy because spiritual people commonly experience these things as psycho-spiritual functions of the ego and the Self, I can't see why it's even mildly unlikely that at least one or two have lived out these transformational processes publicly. I think you have a real problem interpretting *any *significance to the life of Crowley if you don't allow for that to happen once in a while.
Next, you'll tell me there was no Shakespeare.
-
A beautiful little bit of irony...
I was having a smoke out in the brother-in-law's workshop, and I stumbled upon a spiral he sometimes writes in. He's a bit of an herbal mystic, you see. Couldn't help but read that first page...
On it were written three new "scenes" in which Jesus speaks to his disciples.
...lol...
Here's to the "Twelve" and the "One" that unifies and guides them all...!
-
@Frater LR said
" [Wait, Buddha existed, right?]"
Actually even that is debatable (although the consensus is that he did, there's actually very little in the way of historical backing).
Another figure that's currently under some *severe *doubt in academia is Laozi.
There's even something fishy about Mohammed.
In order of academic dubitability, from what I can gather from my amateur researches I'd say it goes:
- Laozi (*extremely *dubious - the DDJ is seen as more like a collection of Late Neolithic "old folks' wisdom" from the Kingdom of Chu, that's been reworked a few times, than the work of one hand - if you look at it objectively, it really is a bit of a jumble, with very little coherence)
- Jesus (pretty doubtful)
- Buddha (meh, could go either way)
- Mohammed (fairly secure, but not entirely without doubt)
Now bear in mind, this is according to strict canons of historical authenticity, as used by contemporary historians. According to these canons, you don't take a cult's tales for granted, and you don't explain the existence of the cult, or the cult's main figurehead, solely on internal evidence, you look outside - to archaeological artefacts, to cross-referencing from other known historical writers who have a certain known percentage of accuracy wrt other historical facts, etc., etc. For example, Julius Caesar is secure because we have numerous writers from different arenas who are known to be historically reliable talking about him as a man, and we have archaeological artefacts, coins, etc., that reference him.
For Jesus, the simple fact is that there's a bit of a dilemma - if he was big enough to cause a stir, then his non-mention by *any *contemporary writer (and there were quite a few of them at the time whom we might have expected to have mentioned either a political revolutionary or a religious revolutionary - e.g. Seneca) is odd; otoh, if he was some obscure fellow who got blown up immediately after his life into some kind of god-man, that too is odd.
Again, looking at it another way, when you have an evident myth, like the myth of the god-man Jesus as we have it, euhemerism is NOT necessarily the default position (i.e. that he was a real person whose story got blown out of all proportion). It has only been the default position because of a sort of half-life of Christian influence, and because biblical scholars (who are, understandably, most of them Christian) just think that way naturally.
But things are changing - just as he was towards the end of the 19th century, he's coming under the scrutiny of real historians (or, more charitably, historians who are secular and unconnected with the Christian faith) who previously might have taken for granted that the requisite donkey-work had been done by biblical scholars (which it actually hasn't). The previous burst of mythicism was interrupted by WW1, and then the fundies circled the wagons. The current burst of mythicist activity doesn't look like it's going to abate any time soon, and it's getting taken more and more seriously in academia (and generally, the standards of scholarship in biblical studies are coming under stricter scrutiny too).
-
Yeah, I know. For me, it's not so much about historical evidence. It's more about probability and the appearance of geniuses.
So many people need to free themselves from the damnable chains of contemporary Christianity. They have my blessing. May they free themselves...! I agree with the proposition that without any more objective historical or archaeological evidence, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a completely debatable point, and is in no way binding on anyone anywhere, here or in any hereafter they may imagine.
But beyond all the debate and the struggling to be free of an ingrained way of thinking... I just picture a Ghandi in the Middle East instead of in India, or an MLK Jr. in in the Middle East instead of in America, or even a Crowley in the Middle East instead of in England. It's easy to picture. And the story ends the same way. Crowley was the only one not hauled before the court for his actions...
I just like the possibility. I like to leave it open-ended. I like that it makes some people uncomfortable. I like that it allows some people a method of transitioning from older beliefs. I like the idea that The Beloved lived that response to Love as well. I like that the door of certainty can't be closed on the matter. I like that it still forces people to struggle with what it might mean for the Logos to "incarnate" in a specific time, space, and culture - and how it can appear completely opposed to itself and yet not be - given the specific time, space, and culture.
For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.
Why not...?
-
Oh sure, there was definitely (at least!) one genius involved - but if the mythicist case is correct, that religious genius was "Paul" (who may or may not have been the same as "Simon Magus"), and "Jesus Christ" was his HGA, or at the very least an entity seen and heard by "Paul", and spoken to, in astral vision.
IOW, in place of a *hypothesized *historical entity (the real human being hypothesized to be at the root of the prima facie "Jesus" myth, the god-man myth), you have an *actual *historical person, a religious genius (which you can see there are flashes of in "Paul" writings, even though they are also heavily Catholicized), someone who actually did kick-start the religion (spread it through various parts of the world at that time).
Again, IOW, if nothing can be identified as uniquely the words of a human Jesus, if it all melts away as midrash, Cynic and Stoic maxims, etc., etc., then at least we *do *have the words of this "Paul" fellow, and it's pretty clear from the "Pauline" writings, that what they practiced in their congregatations was spirit vision, prophecy, tongues, etc., etc. - pukka stuff.