http://www.fearlessbooks.com/FeatureLine27.html

Looks much as my bookcase does. No wonder I'm just a tad bit mixed up. How do you spell c-a-f-e-t-e-r-i-a
c-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y-? ? ?

SSSSHHHHHHhhhhh!!! Quietism in progress!

http://www.passtheword.org/Mol...spiritualguide-a.htm

Interesting topic and interview, Michael, from which we read the following:

quote:

Curiously, when I had finished the first draft of Inner Christianity, I went off to a retreat for Dzogchen, the �Great Perfection� that is said to be the summit of Tibetan Buddhist teaching. Dzogchen, which is quite popular these days, is essentially about developing rigpa, or pure consciousness. I remember telling my editor at the time, �I�m going to see if rigpa is the same as what esoteric Christianity calls �the Son.�� And at the end of it all, I was inclined to believe it is.

The true �I� � the consciousness that looks out at the world through you, as through a window � has many names: in Christianity it is the Son, the Logos, the kingdom of heaven; Jung called it the Self; the Dzogchen teachings speak of rigpa; other Buddhists sometimes call it �mind�; for the Hindus it is Atman. This Self � which is emphatically not the lower self or the ego � is at the core of your being. You can never see it, because it is that which sees. Saint Francis of Assisi alluded to this when he said, �What you are looking for is what is looking.� And Christ in the Gospel of Thomas says, �You can never take hold of it, but you can never lose it.�

Echoes of an ongoing conversation with Eric and on the Wilber thread. As you know, I consider that direct experience of "I" to be naught but the human spirit in its non-reflecting, observational aspect and see no reason to consider it otherwise. This is, in a way, a kind of experience of union with God, in that it is the self awake to its existence prior to any act of reflection or conditioned response -- awareness sprung fresh from the breath of the Creator, as it were. Given how different this experience is from our ordinary experience of Ego consciousness, it is tempting to consider it the experience of God.

A disctinction I would make, here, however, is that the Son/Word/Christ, while one with the human spirit by virtue of the Incarnation, is also the One in us who loves the Father in the Spirit. One can be graced to know this at times through contemplative experiences or movements of love and compassions, wherein the observational, witnessing "I" discovers that it is itself caught up in the movement of this deeper, trinitarian Life. In such times, the experience of "I see" or "I am," which is generally impersonal, cosmic and detached, is, in addition, graced to know its subjectivity as Love itself, or "I love" or "I am the one who loves." The "I am" consciousness is there, but it is less interested in noticing its own mystery than it is in the act of loving, which, presumably, incorporates the intentional aspect of consciousness as well. This, I would say, is the inner experience to which Christianity tends, and it is not so rare as Mr. Smoley might think.

- - -

FWIW, there really was known to be an authentic Christian gnosis quite distinct from what the Gnostics taught. From the time of Origen on, it was presented in terms of comprehending the four senses of Scripture:
1. Literal / historical.
2. Moral
3. Theological
4. Spiritual
To grasp the meaning of Scripture in all four senses was to "Know" the true meaning it conveyed. This distinguished true Christian gnosis from the teachings of the Gnostics, who tended to emphasize only #4 without much reference to the rest, at times, depending on the sect. I think this is still a good way of looking a things, especially as Gnostic teachings are re-surfacing, not to mention New Age versions of Christianity like "The Course in Miracles."

They seem quite convinced that #4 will be the undoing of #s 1, 2 and 3. I see it as transcending,
completing and fulfilling the first three. A Christian is a Christian and has as much of the Power that raised Him from the dead as any other, mystic or tounge talking "baptized in the Spirit"
Pentacostal. I'm always a little skeptical of any intellectual, spiritual or experiential elite.

If it's secret or hidden, it's only for lack of understanding the parabolic and mystery teaching
in all it's marvelous fullness, but I believed in Jesus when I was six years old, and I had already seen through Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. They seem to want Jesus to be the Tooth Fairy, but then replace him with a Santa Claus and Easter Bunny of their own, so what gives?

Have some Dzogchen books in the TBR pile. Good to have you around Phil to pull me back from the edge
after my next exploration.

I'm reading C.S. Lewis now and according to Walter Hooper, Lewis was a full supernaturalist who believed in Creation and Fall, the Virgin Birth, Incarnation and Resurrection, Death, Heaven, Hell and Judgement Day.

Ok, maybe I'm just a little conservative and might do with some Dzogchen, but if I ever become a GURU, then please whack me with a 2x4!

Heisrisen.com <*)))))><

Touche, Michael. There's really nothing new under the sun. Gnostic Christianity has never gone away and its re-emergence in the light of the discovery of a few early Gnostic writings hasn't helped matters. Books like The Da Vinci Code have made a mess of things by suggesting that this was the first, true Christianity, only to be displaced by later versions that extolled the role of the clergy. Balderdash!

Those four points outline the parameters of a congruent, integrated Christian gnosis. The problem with some of the Gnostics is that, in lopping off the first three points, they wind up proposing an a-historical Christianity that also de-emphasizes the importance of community life in favor of a highly individualized mystical spirituality. That's not really what Christ came to bring to this planet.

As usual, I have scattered bits and pieces coming together in my head. Just read the C.S. Lewis essay on historicism. He concludes that we never really have enough information to understand the life of even one historical figure. I see his point, but many simple people with simple ideas have built the schools and hospitals, and the democratic institutions and served in the armed forces.

There are a few bright bulbs with the ability to see beyond the inherent contradictions of our faith, and thank God for them, but reading the gospel of Thomas and seeing that "the kingdom of God is within you," and taking that as the alpha and omega is too pantheistic for me.

There was a movie some years back called Stigmata,
where the Gospel of Thomas was being suppressed by the ecclesiastical establishment, and kept from the people. This is where the thinking so often winds up.

On the contrary, every gospel sermon and eucharistic celebration affirms this fact.
The Kingdom of God is also in the church militant
when gathered for the purpose of seeking and advancing the kingdom.

It does not take esotericism to understand this,
or a T.H.D. either, but a willing and receptive
heart and faith to move forward.

shalom,

mm <*))))><

It bothers me that that some gnostic teachings teach that the God of the Old Testament was Satan.

The Gnostic group that I have studied was the Naassenes. The theories are interesting none the less.

I think that there is no coincidence between the "kingdom of Heaven within you" and Kundalini.

Also the theory of Elijah/Elisha and John the Baptist/Jesus. There is a strong connection between the two pairs. Almost hinting at re-incarnation? I mean look at he miracles and story of both sets. Very similar indeed.

Not to mention, wasn't the place Elijah ascended the same place that John the Baptist baptized Christ?

Christ also took a boat out to be alone when John was be-headed. Jesus must of had a special connection to John.

Also the drawing of Mount Carmel by Saint John of the Cross confirms the saint's direct awareness of sacred anatomy (spiritual body). The drawing shows the central sushumna flanked by the lesser nadis of ida and pingala. So there is something to consider.

I am confused. Gnostic theories clash so hard with my standard view of Christ. What a pounding headache the whole thing gives me.

Now we'll get into pistis and sophia,or the Albigensian heresy, but first what's ida and pingala? Do you have a picture of St. John's drawing. I saw some in a book, but it was from the library and I don't recall which.

thanks,

saintjohn'sworrywort.com

http://www.ccel.org/j/john_cross/ascent/ascent.html

http://www.aryabhatt.com/pranayama/pranayama3.htm

Also the theory of Elijah/Elisha and John the Baptist/Jesus. There is a strong connection between the two pairs. Almost hinting at re-incarnation? I mean look at he miracles and story of both sets. Very similar indeed.

OK, but Eric, that kind of parallel doesn't imply reincarnation, especially since there's no sense of Elisha being the incarnate Word. There would be no need to re-incarnate the incarnate Word, Hindu avatars notwithstanding. Once the human race is joined to the Trinity through such an incarnation, there's no need to keep doing it again and again.

Re. Gospel of Thomas and some of the other Gnostic writings, it might be helpful to recall that there are good reasons why the early Church did not accept these writings as canonical.
1. Many did not really have the authority of an apostle backing them, even thought they might have enlisted the name of one to give them a semblance of authority.
2. Most were not used in the liturgy of the communities.
3. Most were written after 110, which is the cut-off date for documents incorporated into the canon. After that time, there are no living apostles to vouch for the writings, and so ends the first generation of Christianity.

This is not to say that there aren't some good things in some of the Gnostic writings -- just as there are in other documents from the 2nd C. onward. It is to note that these writings are not on a par with the canon of the New Testament and the Tradition of teaching and understanding that accompanied its use by the Church. Also, some Gnostic writings are much more objectionable than others, as Gnosticism itself was a muti-faceted teaching with a broad continuum of positions.

My recommendation, here, is that Christians who aren't grounded in their faith ought not be messing around with Gnostic literature, nor even the literature of other religions.

I don't think according to theory that Elisha had joined the Trinity until he re-incarnated into Jesus then gave his life.

Elisha asked for what a double-fold of Elijah's spirit before Elijah ascended? Jesus did say those who are first, are last and those who are last, are first. If he (Elisha) was the student of Elijah then when they both re-incarnated as John the Baptist/Jesus then the student(Elisha) became the master(Jesus).

Then also Christ could incarnate to help the world. Over and over again. According to Avatar theory.

I have read Lightfoot's "How we got the Bible". I do think that the Naassenes fit the time frame for the Canon. I am not sure though. I think they were listed in Hyppolitus: Refutation of All Heresies. Not sure of the date of that though but I am sure it predates Pauline Christianity.

You are right though. One should stay away from Gnostic literature if their faith is not well grounded. It has messed my head up.

Phil, what are your thoughts on:

"kingdom of Heaven within you" and Kundalini.

I was wondering if you address something like this in your book Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality.

I would like to read that one.

Eric, the reincarnation scenario you mention could have taken place, but if there's no such thing to begin with . . . See this thread, where we've done some reflecting on this topic.

My understanding of Jesus' remarks about John the Baptist as a second coming of Elijah is that Jesus was referring to a sharing in the same prophetic spirit or charism. I doubt that Jesus was referring to reincarnation; there's just no evidence of this in other aspects of his teaching on how things go after death. Surely he would have mentioned it were that the case, no?

"I doubt that Jesus was referring to reincarnation; there's just no evidence of this in other aspects of his teaching on how things go after death. Surely he would have mentioned it were that the case, no?"

I guess if Matthew remembered to write it all down it would.

But surely John, in his extraordinary recounting would have remembered.

I don't buy any of the re-incarnation stuff. But it does make you think. How the heck did someone think up all those theories?

I still honestly believe Kundalini to be a real spiritual event. If it is real than Christ should have spoke of it.

I don't buy any of the re-incarnation stuff. But it does make you think. How the heck did someone think up all those theories?

Eric, I think a lot of things come into being when we prematurely collapse a bit of truth into a whole truth. We�re human. We like to do that. We not only like to run towards truth but away from uncertainty. That�s how I see it, anyway. When one senses an interconnectedness to us all, it�s not a great leap then to extend that interconnectedness through time, both forward and back and thus, voila!, you have a basis for reincarnation.

From my perspective, I hear everybody around hear talking about a lot of things that I can�t directly connect to experience so I have no way of judging their validity. Reincarnation? Kundalini? The Incarnation? I just honestly don�t know. At some point, I guess, we just have to trust and to keep our minds open to what�s drawing us toward love and what is drawing us toward something that perhaps isn�t evoking our better natures.

Hey, Phil. I grew up in Louisiana also. I grew up in Arcadia. A very very tiny interstate 20 town. How bout you? We use to go down to Saline Bayou for duck hunting and fishing.

I sure miss it there. I think it has probably got to be the best place to grow up.

Eric, I grew up in Mansura in Avoyelles Parish, but I know where Arcadia is. I've hunted on Saline Refuge / Catahoula Lake numerous times. Great duck hunting!

Small world.

I remember the camp that we had. You could hear oil pumps going off all night. I remember the excitement getting up at 2 am just to be the first to claim the best plot. Then you would wait anxiously for the sun to come up. You could hear the wood ducks buzzing overhead but couldn't see them yet. Then around noon the mallards would come in. It is so awesome to watch someone call them in with a duck call. Wow, it is a small world.

Thank you for the links, eric. Glad you and Phil have some things in common. Quack! Quack!

rabbitseason.com

abc is once again attacking orthodoxy:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks...stories/s1331087.htm

A little research goes a long way toward debunking the debunker, Tom Harpur. DaVinci Code rehashed...

http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

eric, are you still there? If so, then...

veritas,

mm <*)))))><

From the abc.net article: The Christ is the divine essence of our own nature and his story is the dramatic representation of our own soul�s evolution. As Paul says, �Christ in you, the hope of glory.� That�s a universal message, one that meets the needs of intellect, and heart, and that ultimately leaves no-one excluded from the overwhelming love of God. It unites rather than divides us. That�s a message our sick world needs to hear today.

Yes, the Church came into contact with that one through the teachings of Arius in the late 3rd and early 4th Centuries. It was condemned for a variety of reasons, most notably its conflict with the message of the apostolic tradition, as St. Athanasius noted most powerfully in his rebuttals of it.

The other article seems a good, thorough, expose'. I notice that in so many of these writers, Christianity is presented as the ignorant, close-minded fundamentalists on the one hand, and liberals who don't really believe anything on the other. That's hardly the case! Their criterion also seems to be "palatability," i.e., what they think modern people can accept, rather than what the Church actually taught and still teaches. And sooner or later, Joseph Campbell is cited to bolster the claim that we'd all be so much better off if we treated the whole thing as naught but a myth and never-minded historicity. Without the latter, however, I'd probably be a Buddhist, or a raging addict of some kind . . . or both!