I am sometimes asked "What are you?", meaning am I a Christian, a Buddhist, Theosophist, esotericist or pagan of some kind, whatever it might be. I always find it difficult to give a proper answer to this question since in a way I am all of these and yet none. That is to say, I have learned from many spiritual traditions but cannot fully align myself with any of them because if I did I would then have to take spiritual truth at second hand and be bound by the particular form I had chosen. I am well aware there are some who would consider this spiritual arrogance, but it is not. It simply means that truth is beyond form, any form, and to commit yourself to a religious form means you are stepping down from direct interaction with truth. You then have to accept the restrictions of that form and be limited by its concepts and definitions. You may say you are aware of these and so escape their dominion, but that cannot be the case if you really do believe in the religion as it presents itself. And if you don't wholly believe why bother with it at all other than as a guide? I take several things as guides but do not see any as a destination.
I am always careful to stress that this may not have been the case in the past but it very much is so in our time when all religions have lost spiritual authority and power, and all have become exteriorised versions of themselves with their inner energies increasingly draining away.
So now, if forced to describe myself as something, I might say I am a Christian universalist while all the time realising that is just a phrase which doesn't mean anything much. But if someone wants a label, that's as good as any. I absolutely believe in Christ as the central figure in the human spiritual drama, and that the Christian religion expresses something real and profound about him even though we still do not understand the fullness of it. However, I also believe that Christ as the spiritual commander-in-chief of humanity can operate through different outlets. In this sense, he is like the central hub of a wheel and there are various spokes that go out from him to humanity positioned at different points around the edge of the wheel. That's a clumsy analogy because some of these spokes go directly to him while others only go part of the way and would then have to join another spoke to progress to Christ, complete alignment with whom is the fulfilment of the spiritual path. Still, I hope you get the idea.
Not all the spiritual spokes lead to Christ but he can use some that don't to get an individual some of the way. I see Christ as the goal for all humanity but there are different paths to him, some direct and some circuitous but still leading to him at the end if followed right. I certainly would not say all paths lead to Christ because that isn't true and most don't, but there are more than just one. At the same time, I would also say that to reach the inner reality of Christ means going beyond all outer paths and treading the inner way, and that is the same path for everyone.
Christian universalist it has to be then, but don't take that as saying everyone is saved regardless of their path. Outer paths may vary in their form but the inner quality of each one must have the same core for the path to be effective. The core is the love of God which means true God not some particular image that has been constructed by man, of which there are numerous. The best image of God is Christ as he is the image in which God is most truly revealed
6 comments:
William - I think I understand and agree with your description in terms of what might be termed the religious life or spiritual lifestyle - that there are several, perhaps many, valid possibilities - although also many or most possibilities (or mental attitudes) that are not compatible with Jesus, which tend to block the needful.
In describing these paths; what role or place do you see for Jesus in relation to resurrection and eternal life in Heaven? Is this a necessary aim - and if so, does this aim need to be proximate?
I have noticed that many "esoteric Christians" (Christians who grew from Theosophy, in a way - such as Steiner and Dion Fortune) of the early 20th century, talk almost nothing about resurrection or Heaven, and are mainly interested in ascending towards pure spirit via (probably Many further) reincarnations. Is that what you also think?
The distinction between Heaven and merging into pure spirit is an important one. I believe that both are possible but that Heaven is the better option and the one God created us for but that it was only possible after Jesus who opened up the second creation. Before that the way of the Buddha was probably the highest path.
So, the spiritual path is either to do with the extinction of self or the sanctification of self. Pure spirit would be the former and Heaven the latter. My hope would be for Heaven though I understand the temptation of pure spirit. However, that is surely negating the whole point of Creation which is to do with the expression of love, beauty and goodness. Heaven, I think, would include all the peace and bliss of pure spirit but add to that love, beauty and goodness which are the gifts of selfhood.
Possibly many earlier esotericists could never quite let go of their esotericism and the Platonic/Buddhist/non-dualistic elements of it which aways seemed to point to the highest state. I have found it difficult to do so at times but over the last few years I have come to understand the uniqueness and actual superiority of Jesus' offer of Heaven which goes beyond earlier mystical goals.
I've just realised I didn't answer you question. It must be the heat!
I see Jesus as central to this but what I was saying in the post is that spiritual Jesus is bigger than historical Jesus and it is spiritual Jesus that matters which is not to diminish historical Jesus but merely to say that spiritual Jesus goes beyond this. And spiritual Jesus is responded to and known only in the heart.
"the extinction of self or the sanctification of self."
Thanks for that distinction.
I suppose that some oneness spirituality folk who regard themselves as Christians would say that sanctification entails the loss of "ego" and complete identification with the divine will. But at a common sense level, they are more like opposites.
Although the Gospels *can* be read as Jesus negating himself and becoming a kind of pure-channel for The Father's will, such that Father and Son cannot be distinguished...
But this is to explain-away a great deal of the very distinctive "personality" of Jesus - his repeated ability to surprise, his strong and personal emotions, even the irritable comments and actions! Also what seems to me the new and radical nature of what he offers - especially in the IV Gospel, compared with anything that went before.
So I regard it as is correct to assert that Jesus is both divine and a Man - although (as you know) I do not think it makes sense to try and "explain" this Men-god nature on the basis of word-spells about one indivisible God that is also simultaneously threefold.
Jesus's creative divinity demands an explanation, but maybe ought to be explained more straightforwardly, comprehensibly, coherently - (I think) along the lines of Jesus being a second divine creator, adding the possibility of salvation through "following" Him, to His Father's pre-existing and continuing primary creation.
Whether this formulation makes sense to others or not, at any rate Christians must strive do better at explain the necessity of Jesus, than the paradoxical and confusing Trinitarian dogmas.
If these ancient explanations had been sufficiently coherent, the pure monotheism of Islam would never have arisen - and Islam has now all-but taken over as the most dominant and motivating world religion - especially when complemented by the much smaller, but more concentratedly-powerful, Judaism.
Adding the atheists and Hindu/ Buddhist polytheists; it could be said that most of the world has by now overwhelming declared Trinitarianism to be incomprehensible, and/or meaningless, and/or false!
"the extinction of self or the sanctification of self."
I would say we do need to overcome the ego but that does not mean destroy the whole idea of self which is a gift from God which we have to return to him for him then to give back to us filled with his spirit.
Yes, as Arkle made clear for me, we need to distinguish between a "personality and surface self (maybe "ego" is a good word for it) but a deeper and essential self - which doesn't have a generally accepted name. I would like to call it our Eternal Self, but that rather begs the question for some people.
Post a Comment