Was Christ a Yogi?

[Shabd Mystic]

Regarding Charan Singh, I would have a different interpretation than his, particularly his "light of the world" reference. For me, that verse is taken out of context. The time to which Jesus is referring (my opinion) is the time when God will totally withdraw His presence from the world in the last days

I was going through my massive collection of quotations (I have at least couple thousand I've collected over the years relating to religion and mysticism and spirituality) and this one covers what I'd said earlier. I know it won't matter because you have a different view of it, but I realized I've been referring a lot to what "countless Masters" have said about many things, and I rarely backed that up, so I'm just trying to do a little of that over the last few posts. Here it is:

"The Original Divine Sound, which originated from the Supreme Sovereign, continuously without break reverberates throughout the hearts of the entire macrocosm and microcosm. The Sound will inherently go on for the duration of creation because the evolution of creation depends upon the existence of Sound. Should the Sound cease so would creation."

~ Maharshi Mehi

I'm not sure whether or not Maharishi Mehi was a "Perfect" Master, but I know He was definitely "up there." At the very least He was repeating what so many others in His line, and similar lines of Masters have said. That certainly doesn't prove anything to anyone who doesn't believe anyone could ever be Perfect other than Jesus, but at least it helps show that I'm not just saying things and claiming highly achieving Masters have said it.

"What I say" won't have any credibility but at least my statement that I'm only repeating what Masters have said will.

.

[Habitat]

Being in the thrall of 'masters', perfect or otherwise, is of no use. Take what they have to offer and move on.

[Karlis]

I was going through my massive collection of quotations (I have at least couple thousand I've collected over the years relating to religion and mysticism and spirituality) and this one covers what I'd said earlier. I know it won't matter because you have a different view of it, but I realized I've been referring a lot to what "countless Masters" have said about many things, and I rarely backed that up, so I'm just trying to do a little of that over the last few posts. Here it is:

"The Original Divine Sound, which originated from the Supreme Sovereign, continuously without break reverberates throughout the hearts of the entire macrocosm and microcosm. The Sound will inherently go on for the duration of creation because the evolution of creation depends upon the existence of Sound. Should the Sound cease so would creation."

~ Maharshi Mehi

I'm not sure whether or not Maharishi Mehi was a "Perfect" Master, but I know He was definitely "up there." At the very least He was repeating what so many others in His line, and similar lines of Masters have said. That certainly doesn't prove anything to anyone who doesn't believe anyone could ever be Perfect other than Jesus, but at least it helps show that I'm not just saying things and claiming highly achieving Masters have said it.

"What I say" won't have any credibility but at least my statement that I'm only repeating what Masters have said will.

.

Hi Shabd Mystic,

Please go easy on making so many posts from your, "massive collection of quotations". Feel free to supply a quote, when it will illustrate or make your point -- but don't swamp the thread with these quotes.

Thanks,

Karlis -- moderator team member

[J. K.]

I respect your opinion, but that's such a crucial thing that I've chosen to rely on the "opinions" of countless Mystics (or "Perfect Masters") throughout history. They all teach, in many different ways and different languages, that "God is within us." That is not "symbolic." That is very literal. Our soul itself is a "spark" from God. It is God.

Whereas I would say that our spirit is dead until God regenerates it to become a part of His Spirit.

The reason Christians aren't aware of the incredible number of things in the Bible that perfectly match the teachings of countless Mystics is because no Christian has ever wanted to take the time to do such research (it's been done by others but no Christian would ever "waste their time" reading such "heresy").

I think that the reason they don't want to 'waste their time' is that there are only three or four schools of thought that offer counters to Christianity. There are many variations on the theme, and after a while they all begin to sound alike.

None want to hear anything that would cause doubt about Christianity. Not even a single quote from Jesus would ever be considered in any light except one that matches the beliefs of Christianity. A quote can have a dozen different interpretations and all could be acceptable by various Christians, but if the "literal" explanation doesn't match what they want to believe, it's 'impossible." Jesus must have been talking in "code" in such cases. That makes more sense.

I don't mind hearing other views, as I am comfortable and secure in my belief. And yes, the Bible does speak in code at times; "He who has ears, let him hear."

Not even a single quote from Jesus would ever be considered in any light except one that matches the beliefs of Christianity.

Well, I accept The Gospel of Thomas because it not only perfectly matches all Jesus taught when viewed on the mystical level, but it also happens to perfectly match all the mystical teaching of numerous other Masters going back before Jesus, and going up to the present day.

Don't you see the irony of your two statements? I accept the Bible for the same basic reason you accept the Gospel of Thomas.

I'm reading a book now which says how much it makes sense in very clear language (though it's not talking specifically about The gospel of Thomas). It says that God would never discriminate between Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and many others. He wouldn't only offer one group a way Home and send everyone who didn't believe, or who never even heard about it, or who were born severely retarded, or who died very young, to hell.

I trust that God know how to judge the spirits of His own creations.

There are others but I'm not going to spend time posting all that because I know there is no way you, or any other Christian will EVER see such things in any way but a way that fits their preconceived notions.

My friend, we both have preconceived notions through which we filter all input.

But Christians don't even offer the possibility that anything they believe could be wrong. After all, if you don't "believe," you can't go to heaven.

The God Whom I worship is big enough to handle any doubts that I ever have.

Since making SURE you'll go to heaven automatically disqualifies you from going to heaven, because it means you don't "believe," who would ever risk that just in case Christianity really is the one true religion?

Are you saying that there can only be belief if there is no proof? That belief can have no substantiation? I would have to disagree with that. My belief is based on the proof that I have read about and experienced. Faith is not simply blindly following an unseen, unknowable guide. Faith is trusting that God knows what He's doing. Consider a three year old who wants to eat all the candy he can get his hands on. The parent knows that the child doesn't know: that sickness would result. The child has to learn that the parent knows what the child doesn't understand.

[Shabd Mystic]

Being in the thrall of 'masters', perfect or otherwise, is of no use. Take what they have to offer and move on.

Now I understand your confusion. You can't grasp what a Master truly is and what He does for a disciple so you couldn't possibly understand why it doesn't work that way.

This reminds me of a situation like a guy starting to date Angelina Jolie and the two of them falling head over heels in love and some young high school kind running up to the guy and telling him to "take what she has to offer and move on."

At first you become stunned by the statement but then you realize he's never even been near anyone in his life the likes of Angelina and what being in love with her does for him and how it does that every waking moment every day.

He soon realizes what he's dealing with when talking to this kid so he soon just chuckles and moves along.

.

[Shabd Mystic]

Hi Shabd Mystic,

Please go easy on making so many posts from your, "massive collection of quotations". Feel free to supply a quote, when it will illustrate or make your point -- but don't swamp the thread with these quotes.

Thanks,

Karlis -- moderator team member

No prob.

[karmakazi]

The reason Christians aren't aware of the incredible number of things in the Bible that perfectly match the teachings of countless Mystics is because no Christian has ever wanted to take the time to do such research (it's been done by others but no Christian would ever "waste their time" reading such "heresy").

None want to hear anything that would cause doubt about Christianity. Not even a single quote from Jesus would ever be considered in any light except one that matches the beliefs of Christianity. A quote can have a dozen different interpretations and all could be acceptable by various Christians, but if the "literal" explanation doesn't match what they want to believe, it's 'impossible." Jesus must have been talking in "code" in such cases. That makes more sense.

I think that the reason they don't want to 'waste their time' is that there are only three or four schools of thought that offer counters to Christianity. There are many variations on the theme, and after a while they all begin to sound alike.

Shabd and J.K. - there are those Christians who do find something in mysticism appealing and move towards it. I can tell you there's at least one person who has done so. There may even be people who've gone the other direction too.

Are you saying that there can only be belief if there is no proof? That belief can have no substantiation? I would have to disagree with that. My belief is based on the proof that I have read about and experienced. Faith is not simply blindly following an unseen, unknowable guide. Faith is trusting that God knows what He's doing. Consider a three year old who wants to eat all the candy he can get his hands on. The parent knows that the child doesn't know: that sickness would result. The child has to learn that the parent knows what the child doesn't understand.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but to dig deeper into the idea I must ask which is better: Allowing the child to learn the hard lesson by getting sick or punishing them when they don't trust the parent enough to just accept the guidance? It is my feeling that the only lessons that really stick with us are our own mistakes and errors, and the more difficulty they cause for us the less likely we are to make that mistake again.

[White Crane Feather]

A lot of people would get irritated by talk of great spiritual masters attaining high levels of perfection, by climbing some scale of achievement. It smacks of self-absorption and lacks the down to earth quality I see in the true "masters". Unless such activity ( or, paradoxically, inactivity) yields fruit for the world at large, it is just an exercise in vanity. The true test of any "inner traveller" is love, and how much it is the prime mover in their quest.

Right. Where as some see deception in variety, many of us see deception, control, and untruth in such dogma and guruship.

The Krishna when speaking to Arjun in the begavagita describes this. Basically saying that the methods do not matter merely the discipline and reverence in that discepline.

Many have sought and seen, then become troubled, then astonished, then they have no desire to rule. Only to share. I don't beleive in hierarchys or dark forces of subversion, there simply is no point, and trusting human written books on the subject seems a bit risky. Humans can be dark and subversive, there is no reason to think the spirit operates that way.

It would seem to me that human beings and institutions would have an intrest in placing hierarchies and "methods" and warnings of evil and subversion in the path of seekers. Once someone has a certain amount of experience they no longer are controllable or able to be manipulated by hierarchies, rullership, and indoctrinated thought.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Seeker79

[J. K.]

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but to dig deeper into the idea I must ask which is better: Allowing the child to learn the hard lesson by getting sick or punishing them when they don't trust the parent enough to just accept the guidance? It is my feeling that the only lessons that really stick with us are our own mistakes and errors, and the more difficulty they cause for us the less likely we are to make that mistake again.

I would agree that lessons are best remembered when we experience the consequences, but part of the process should be learning that we can trust our parent to have our best interests in mind.

[White Crane Feather]

Now I understand your confusion. You can't grasp what a Master truly is and what He does for a disciple so you couldn't possibly understand why it doesn't work that way.

This reminds me of a situation like a guy starting to date Angelina Jolie and the two of them falling head over heels in love and some young high school kind running up to the guy and telling him to "take what she has to offer and move on."

At first you become stunned by the statement but then you realize he's never even been near anyone in his life the likes of Angelina and what being in love with her does for him and how it does that every waking moment every day.

He soon realizes what he's dealing with when talking to this kid so he soon just chuckles and moves along.

.

Falling in love with a master a Shabd? Is that really the path of a mystic? Is that not where cults come from? I understand falling in love there are more than a few humans I feel that way about, but a guru... That you beleive is perfect?

I runderstand loveing a teacher even, but the second he considers him/her self perfect there in itself is imperfection. I am a teacher... And the times people have even suggested my grandness, I set them straight imeadiatly. I would only follow someone who is perfectly aware of their imperfections and continue to learn almongside their students, sometimes....manytimes even from them. this reminds me of why I don't let people call me master ( martial arts)

"there are no such things as masters, only very old students"

One of my teachers said that to me, he also refused to be called master. I don't know who originally said it.

[Shabd Mystic]

Falling in love with a master a Shabd? Is that really the path of a mystic? Is that not where cults come from? I understand falling in love there are more than a few humans I feel that way about, but a guru... That you beleive is perfect?

LOL! Zip up your pants and use your brain.

I knew if I used a picture of a beautiful woman my point would become completely lost on those swimming in hormones but I had time constraints and that was what came to mind.

He said, "Take what they have to offer and move on. " I used my analogy to try to make it obvious that He has a ton of "stuff" to offer that can't possibly be gotten if you just "move on."

Of course, anyone looking at Angelina Jolie who is thinking nothing but "sex, sex, sex," could never understand what I was saying. It had nothing at all to do with "being in love," nor was I even trying to say there was a single thing in common with my example. A guy can "be in love" with Angelina and still "move on." Moving on wouldn't change that.

All i was saying was there was much more that came from not "moving along." I can list a thousand things but if you can't see all the many ways being Angelina's boy friend would open up an entire world of incredible things, then I can't help you. You'll just have to stick with your original idea.

I runderstand loveing a teacher even, but the second he considers him/her self perfect there in itself is imperfection.

Where did I ever say or even suggest "He" considers himself Perfect? You might want to read what I wrote again before assigning labels to people. It's near impossible to make proper judgments about people when you just "decide" something is the case even though you have absolutely no reason to say such a thing.

Also, where did I ever say I love Him?

Where did I even hint at such a thing?

I am a teacher... And the times people have even suggested my grandness, I set them straight imeadiatly.

It's funny because a Master would NEVER make a statement like that. "And the times people have even suggested my grandness." That statement is dripping with ego. Any Master who would ever say such a thing would automatically be seen as anything but "Perfect." And tacking this on the end, " I set them straight imeadiatly. [sic]" is even more egoistic than the first part of the statement. You not only tell us how "grand" people think you are, but then tell us how incredibly humble you are because you "straighten them out."

That's good stuff.

I guess I'll come to you to help me decide which Master is a true and perfect Master because you clearly have such a great grasp on how to sniff out ego in others. Thanks for sharing.

I would only follow someone who is perfectly aware of their imperfections and continue to learn almongside their students, sometimes....manytimes even from them.

Well you have hundreds to chose from since the world is packed with gurus who are loaded with imperfections. Good luck getting anywhere with them, but the ride will surely be "entertaining."

this reminds me of why I don't let people call me master ( martial arts)

"there are no such things as masters, only very old students"

One of my teachers said that to me, he also refused to be called master. I don't know who originally said it.

I don't know why anyone would decide that, or decide to be called master either, but since we are talking about two completely different things it doesn't matter whether or not a martial arts instructor is or isn't called "master." That has nothing at all in common with a perfect Master. Nothing.

Perfect Masters are also called "Saints" but that isn't even close to the "saints" people think of in the Catholic religion. But at least the two things have "spirituality" in common.

Master is also a term used widely by sadomasochistic "love" participants. If a sadist came on here talking about how gret he is at what he does, but then says he's so humble he won't allow his slaves to call him master, should that also be something that should apply to my situation in any way?

Do you have a problem with the disciples who called Jesus Master? If you were around then would you go tell them how foolish it was because YOU didn't let your followers call you master?

I'm guessing the answer might be yes, lol, but I hope not.

***

Oh, by the way, the Guy I've been referring to doesn't allow anyone to address Him that way but His followers ususally do so when talking about Him. So, does that mean He is now a "great Guru" since he fulfills your requirements?

.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Shabd Mystic

[ChloeB]

Being in the thrall of 'masters', perfect or otherwise, is of no use. Take what they have to offer and move on.

13

Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

Shabd, that's from Gospel of Thomas we were discussing in the other thread, which you seemed fond of, commented about how it was based on mysticism. Now how is what Jesus says to Thomas, that's he's not his master and what follows any different than what Habitat said?

[Habitat]

Well, I don't know Angelina Jolie, and presumably neither does Shabd Mystic, so I don't know how he arrived at the point of attributing wondrous qualities to her, (apart from her being very easy on the eye ) other than through projection. And this is what he is doing, IMO, with his favourite mystics, projecting his own need for spiritual progress on to them, much the way a lot of Christians do with Christ. There is a great allure in externalising on to external 'carriers', that which is crying out for expression in ourselves. I might even dare to guess that SM's fixation on Angelina is his feminine aspect looking for expression, and finding in such a beauty, a perfect object of attachment. I recall Carl Jung's musing that beautiful women were almost always a big disappointment when engaged personally, my take on that is that a 'big disappointment' implies a 'big expectation', and that is the handiwork of the unconscious mind and psychological projection. We all have qualities that are 'dangerous' to admit to owning, such as feminine qualities in a man, and it is 'safer' to see them in others.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Habitat

[Shabd Mystic]

13

Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

Shabd, that's from Gospel of Thomas we were discussing in the other thread, which you seemed fond of, commented about how it was based on mysticism. Now how is what Jesus says to Thomas, that's he's not his master and what follows any different than what Habitat said?

Chloe you completely missed what that was saying. All the disciples called Jesus Master, but when Thomas went to do it Jesus told Him not to because Thomas had "become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

That means Thomas had finally "reached Home" mystically. He had finally himself become one with God and therefore just like Jesus. It was from that point he was considered Jesus "twin." Jesus was no longer Thomas's "Master" because God needs no Master.

As the rest of that quote went on to say:

And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."

It's clear Jesus was no telling Thomas things that couldn't be told to the other disciples because they hadn't become "one with God."

If the disciples didn't always refer to Jesus as "Master" then Thomas would never have done so to begin with. Jesus didn't say "don't any of you call Me Master," though the others were clearly in the room. He didn't say "I am nobody's Master." He said, ""I am not YOUR Master."

.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Shabd Mystic

[Shabd Mystic]

Shabd and J.K. - there are those Christians who do find something in mysticism appealing and move towards it. I can tell you there's at least one person who has done so. There may even be people who've gone the other direction too.

There are countless Christian mystics. Many who were, or are, famous and many more who nobody ever heard of. There are thousands, in fact, following the Path I'm on.

.

[Habitat]

Chloe you completely missed what that was saying. All the disciples called Jesus Master, but when Thomas went to do it Jesus told Him not to because Thomas had "become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

That means Thomas had finally "reached Home" mystically. He had finally himself become one with God and therefore just like Jesus. It was from that point he was considered Jesus "twin." Jesus was no longer Thomas's "Master" because God needs no Master.

As the rest of that quote went on to say:

And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."

It's clear Jesus was no telling Thomas things that couldn't be told to the other disciples because they hadn't become "one with God."

If the disciples didn't always refer to Jesus as "Master" then Thomas would never have done so to begin with. Jesus didn't say "don't any of you call Me Master," though the others were clearly in the room. He didn't say "I am nobody's Master." He said, ""I am not YOUR Master."

.

Might be a sound interpretation, SM. But I don't see how a 'master' you have had no personal interaction with is any more useful than a long dead one. You have stated you are somehow under the wing of an Indian guru that is actively enabling you, but you have never interacted with the guy at all. By some magic, he is guiding you from afar. Some would say you have deluded yourself by insisting on the efficacy of a living ( but not personally known to you ) master over the dead variety, and I would not like the job of having to argue the case in your favour. It almost sounds like you have 'fallen in love' with your guru and imagine your obsession is reciprocated. I guess falling in love with the dead is a stretch.

[ChloeB]

Chloe you completely missed what that was saying. All the disciples called Jesus Master, but when Thomas went to do it Jesus told Him not to because Thomas had "become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

That means Thomas had finally "reached Home" mystically. He had finally himself become one with God and therefore just like Jesus. It was from that point he was considered Jesus "twin." Jesus was no longer Thomas's "Master" because God needs no Master.

As the rest of that quote went on to say:

And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."

It's clear Jesus was no telling Thomas things that couldn't be told to the other disciples because they hadn't become "one with God."

If the disciples didn't always refer to Jesus as "Master" then Thomas would never have done so to begin with. Jesus didn't say "don't any of you call Me Master," though the others were clearly in the room. He didn't say "I am nobody's Master." He said, ""I am not YOUR Master."

.

Completely! Completely missed it? Dammit! Okay, I've had the flu for 3 days, fever has fried my brain, but I honestly thought he was saying Thomas was getting drunk on what he was telling them, like losing sight of the path and getting so caught up in him being a Master, but what you said does make sense, that they'd stone someone for sure, for saying they were one with God. Actually, I was just reading this book I had by Elaine Pagels about Gospel of Thomas for DS's thread, and there was a bit about someone saying if they'd had the Gospel of Thomas, they'd not had to have became a Buddhist, but then someone else disagreed and said that there's nothing in those texts different than what the church offers, in texts of mystics of the church like Saint Teresa or Saint John of the Cross, but Elaine Pagels disagreed to that and said that they were intensely aware that whatever revelations they confided to their superiors would have to conform to orthodox and one of the big no-no's was to not identify themselves with God.

[Shabd Mystic]

I think that the reason they don't want to 'waste their time' is that there are only three or four schools of thought that offer counters to Christianity. There are many variations on the theme, and after a while they all begin to sound alike.

"Mysticism" is only one "school of thought," when it's the same exact teachings over and over again from countless sages. The very same "school of thought" taught by the Gnostics. The "school of thought" the Christian church banned, ruled heretical, and went to great lengths to destroy.

I don't mind hearing other views, as I am comfortable and secure in my belief. And yes, the Bible does speak in code at times; "He who has ears, let him hear."

Once again you see that the way Christians see it while I have a purely mystical interpretation (I'll cover later). I'll just say there was no need for Jesus to add that except for the mystical interpretation of it.

My friend, we both have preconceived notions through which we filter all input.

See, where I come from having absolute proof of the truth of things is not referred to as "notions." Never mind that "proof" can't be "preconceived."

The God Whom I worship is big enough to handle any doubts that I ever have.

I guess you follow a different form of Christianity than what I and others were referring to because the one we were speaking of says you have to believe in order to be "saved." It's good to know in your variety of Christianity you don't need to be a believer. I doubt there are many like your church, but it's great to see yet another difference among Christians and their beliefs.

Are you saying that there can only be belief if there is no proof? That belief can have no substantiation?

There is a VAST difference between absolute proof and a series of events or stories that can be seen to indicate something "might" be true, depending whether they are believed, and depending how they are interpreted.

I'm talking about "proof." Something akin to you having breakfast everyday at the local IHOP with Jesus and several other people who vary according to their schedules.

Faith is not simply blindly following an unseen, unknowable guide.

Oh, when was the last time you guys were at IHOP? When was the last time you saw God or Jesus face-to-face?

Faith is trusting that God knows what He's doing.

I have absolute faith in that. I also have faith that He only allows those "who have eyes" to see and "who have ears" to hear, to know what He wants.

Mystics refer to that as "nirat." It refers to the 'eyes" and "ears" of the soul. It is the soul's ability to see and to hear. Nirat doesn't truly develop until you have begun living the way God wants you to in every way. When it does develop then you will be able to "see" and "hear" that just as Jesus said in the Bible. Only then can anyone truly understand what God want from us.

Until then it is mere conjecture, no matter how many things our mind uses to try to determine it. Until we hear it from God's mouth we have nothing but "faith" that we are right. And the human ego makes everyone believe that, no matter what it is they want to believe. And there are countless different things that many people "believe" even though, by the process of elimination, the vast majority of those beliefs have to be wrong.

.

[Habitat]

It becomes rather difficult to accept the idea of Thomas as a 'perfected master' if he wasn't even aware of it himself, as SM's interpretation of this extract implies:

Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

After all, Jesus completely contradicts Thomas, who calls him master but is then rebuked for doing so. If two 'perfected' masters can't agree on this, I don't see much hope for the rest of us. Note the other two did not call him 'master' and I think it entirely an open question that what is translated as 'master' is what SM calls a 'master'. It is quite plausible that Jesus takes Thomas aside for his 'master' comment to chide him for his fawning attachment to the man, rather than the teaching, possibly tells him he is a more apt subject than the other two, but is straying from the narrow path. If we accept the premise that a perfected master(if such exists) might be unaware of it himself, how can the uninitiated be expected to know ? The lesson in this is that this process is at the "business end", of necessity a solitary one, without mediation by others.

[Shabd Mystic]

Completely! Completely missed it? Dammit! Okay, I've had the flu for 3 days, fever has fried my brain, but I honestly thought he was saying Thomas was getting drunk on what he was telling them, like losing sight of the path and getting so caught up in him being a Master, but what you said does make sense, that they'd stone someone for sure, for saying they were one with God. Actually, I was just reading this book I had by Elaine Pagels about Gospel of Thomas for DS's thread, and there was a bit about someone saying if they'd had the Gospel of Thomas, they'd not had to have became a Buddhist, but then someone else disagreed and said that there's nothing in those texts different than what the church offers, in texts of mystics of the church like Saint Teresa or Saint John of the Cross, but Elaine Pagels disagreed to that and said that they were intensely aware that whatever revelations they confided to their superiors would have to conform to orthodox and one of the big no-no's was to not identify themselves with God.

Elaine Pagels is my ABSOLUTE favorite author. That was a great book. More than anyone I've ever read with a Christian background, she truly does "get" a lot of the Gnostic writings, but she still misses on some of it. I was reading a good article the other day by a mystic who was a little more harsh in his criticism of her but he still admired her. She was one of the first to truly begin to grasp the Gospel of Thomas and to see how incredible the discovery of it, and the other Gnostic texts were.

I also found a Web site that had "Buddhist" interpretations of the complete Gospel and i saved it as a PDF to read later, but what little I did read I agreed with. As for it being the same as what the church offers, I strongly disagree. If that was the case it wouldn't have been "gotten rid of" by the church.

With enough time and a lot of thinking, most things can be twisted to "seem" like they might be saying something the church teaches, but with The Gospel of Thomas that would take outright witchcraft, lol.

.

[Shabd Mystic]

Chloe,

I rushed through my last reply (too anxious to go make some supper, lol) and I was in the kitchen when I realized I'd wanted to say something else ...

That's terrible about your flu! I've been very lucky to have avoided a similar fate for many years, but that's probably because it's not all that common in Florida.

I hope it's not a bad case and that you get over it very soon!

God bless.

[Cosmic Radiant]

Is there any actual proof out there that the Gospel of Thomas and all the other gnostic books of the bible were actually original? Wheres the proof that they were taken out of the bible and what was the reason for it in the first place? That's what needs to be proven first, before we can even take them seriously. I have been thinking about conducting research on various topics like these.

[Shabd Mystic]

Is there any actual proof out there that the Gospel of Thomas and all the other gnostic books of the bible were actually original? Wheres the proof that they were taken out of the bible and what was the reason for it in the first place? That's what needs to be proven first, before we can even take them seriously. I have been thinking about conducting research on various topics like these.

I read a while back that most Biblical scholars now say that Thomas came first and that 2 of the Bible's authors copied much of it and added their own "drama" in spots. I can't recall whether I read that in a book or online but there were several quotes from highly respected scholars. (I'll try to track it down somehow.)

It had a lot of compelling reasons for that conclusion, but if you search you'll likely find countless "Christian" sites that say everything but that. In trying to find the truth you have to start by removing any sources that have a clear "interest" in selling you on their point of view. There are still some seemingly unbiased sources who believe Thomas came a bit later than the books of the Bible, but they are now in the minority.

Does that mean the "majority" is definitely right? Of course not. But the only way you can ever even come close to the truth about so many "controversies" regarding the Bible is by eliminating anyone who has something to gain or lose by whatever they are saying. Then use the remaining sources to try to figure things out.

.

[Shabd Mystic]

Elaine H. Pagels, The Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton University, on The Gospel of Thomas:

("It does not tell the story of the life and death of Jesus, but offers the reader his 'secret teachings' about the Kingdom of God.")

...

The Gospel of Thomas also suggests that Jesus is aware of, and criticizing the views of the Kingdom of God as a time or a place that appear in the other gospels. Here Jesus says, "If those who lead you say to you, 'look, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds will get there first. If they say 'it's in the ocean,' then the fish will get there first. But the Kingdom of God is within you and outside of you. Once you come to know yourselves, you will become known. And you will know that it is you who are the children of the living father."

In this gospel, and this is also the case in the Gospel of Luke, the Kingdom of God is not an event that's going to be catastrophically shattering the world as we know it and ushering in a new millennium. Here, as in Luke 17:20, the Kingdom of God is said to be an interior state; "It's within you," Luke says. And here it says, "It's inside you but it's also outside of you." It's like a state of consciousness. It's hard to describe. But the Kingdom of God here is something that you can enter when you attain gnosis, which means knowledge. But itdoesn't mean intellectual knowledge. The Greeks had two words for knowledge. One is intellectual knowledge, like the knowledge of physics or something like that. But this gnosis is personal, like "I know that person, or do you know so and so." So this gnosis is self-knowledge; you could call it insight. It's a question of knowing who you really are, not at the ordinary level of your name and your social class or your position. But knowing yourself at a deep level. The secret of gnosis is that when you know yourself at that level you will also come to know God, because you will discover that the divine is within you.

JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas does appear rather different from the Jesus we encounter in the others. Because the Gospel of Mark, for example, depicts Jesus as an utterly unique being. This is the good news of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. The Gospel of John says that Jesus isn't even a human being at all, but he's a divine presence who comes down to heaven in human shape.... The Gospel of John says, "God sent his son into the world to save the world." If you believe in him, you're saved, if you don't believe in him you're already damned, because you haven't believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Now, [in the Gospel of Thomas], this Jesus comes to reveal that you and he are, if you like, twins.... And what you discover as you read the Gospel of Thomas, which you're meant to discover, is that you and Jesus at a deep level are identical twins. And that you discover that you are the child of God just as he is. And so that at the end of the gospel Jesus speaks to Thomas and says, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will becomeas I am, and I will become that person, and the mysteries will be revealed to him."

Here, Jesus does not take the role of authority and teacher. In the Gospel of Thomas, the disciples say to Jesus, "Tell us, what do you want us to do? How shall we pray? What shall we eat? How shall we fast?" Now if you look at Matthew and Luke, Jesus answers the questions. He says, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father who are in Heaven, hallowed be...' When you fast, wash your face, don't make a show of it. When you give alms do it privately and without being showy." In this gospel, this Jesus does not answer. He says, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for everything is known before heaven." Now this answer throws you and me upon ourselves.... Here Jesus, in effect, turns one toward oneself, and that is really one of the themes of the Gospel of Thomas, that you must go in a sort of a spiritual quest of your own to discover who you are, and to discover really that you are the child of God just like Jesus.

...

More here.

Yet we speak of wisdom among the initiated, a wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew, for if they had known, they would have not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it has been written, `What the eye did not see, and the ear did not hear, and which has not arisen in the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love him'.

(1 Corinthians 2)

.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Shabd Mystic

[Habitat]

Magicka wrote: Is there any actual proof out there that the Gospel of Thomas and all the other gnostic books of the bible were actually original? Wheres the proof that they were taken out of the bible and what was the reason for it in the first place? That's what needs to be proven first, before we can even take them seriously. I have been thinking about conducting research on various topics like these.

I wouldn't worry too much about the authenticity of it, or any other such text, as long as you are moved by it, there is a truth in it that accords with a drive or impulse latent in you. Do people shun great movies, opera, the theatre and art because they don't know it actually happened in "real" life just like that ? Of course not. The real problem is that the religious impulse can be contaminated or out-competed by other drives, like weeds in the garden, the best advice I could give is that more you feel unselfish love radiating from you, and the less of the will to impose your own "brand" on the world, the greater the chance it(the text) is truely religious in nature.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Habitat