Christian Mysticism

[thelerner]

Thought I'd post this here:

The monk who lives up a rock to get closer to God A Georgian monk has lived up a 131ft pillar of rock for 20 years in a lonely quest to get closer to God.

Last of the Stylites Maxime Qavtaradze, who lives on top of the Katskhi Pillar, Georgia. Photo: REX/AMOS CHAPPLE

By Matthew Day 3:53PM BST 06 Sep 2013 224 Comments

Maxime Qavtaradze is following in the ancient traditions of the Stylites, or Pillar Saints: men of the Byzantine world who believed residing up pillars would remove them from temptation and provide ample opportunity for prayer and contemplation.

The monk's life of solitude came to light after New Zealand photographer Amos Chapple was permitted to photograph the man and his rock, but only after he had spent four days in intensive prayer.

 

At first life on the Katskhi Pillar, Mr Qavtaradze's limestone monolith which stands in the Caucasus Mountains that run through Georgia, was tough for the monk.

 

"For the first two years there was nothing up here so I slept in an old fridge to protect me from the weather," said the 59-year-old monk. Later, Christian supporters renovated a derelict chapel and built a cottage to provide him with a few creature comforts.

 

Mr Qavtaradze makes the 20 minute and perilous climb down a ladder attached to the pillar twice a week to pray at a small monastery at the foot of the tower. But he relies on daily provisions winched to him by supporters on the ground.

Once home to Stylites, the Katskhi Pillar had remained derelict for centuries, and it was only in 1944 that a team of climbers scaled the tower, finding at the top the skeleton of its last occupant. Mr Qavtaradze moved in 1993 after taking his monastic vows, and found it moved him closer to God and help banish a troubled past.

 

"It is up here in the silence that you can feel God's presence," he said. "When I was young I drank, sold drugs, everything. When I ended up in prison I knew it was time for a change.

 

"I used to drink with friends in the hills around here and look up at this place, where land met sky," he added. "We knew the monks had lived up there before and I felt great respect for them."

Edited September 8, 2013 by thelerner

[三江源]

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by cat

[Apech]

I just watched an interesting documentary from the BBC which some might find of interest:

 

 

 

 

I've watched this too - it is very interesting and I was feeling quite convinced ... not quite so sure now ...

[三江源]

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by cat

[Apech]

Being convinced and sure might not be necessary.

 

That is true of course.

 

But I very much liked the idea and it seemed to explain why Jesus was so different from Old Testament prophets and so on. There's another theory that he was influenced by the Hellenic culture in Galilee via the Stoics and Epicureans and whatnot ...

[Seth Ananda]

If we are talking about Influences on Jesus, lets not forget the possibility that he may have been a Rabbi. Influences available at that time are Kabbalah, Platonism/Neoplatonism, the Esseness, The Egyptian mysteries and others...

 

I personally see an incredible similarity between Platonic teachings and Christs teachings.

 

One author pointed out that if Neoplatonism is Platonism minus politics, then Christianity is Neoplatonism plus Jesus. Pick up something on the Enneads and check out how amazingly similar it is in many ways.

 

Also as far as I am concerned all these schools of thought flow from Egypt. They are the perennial tradition.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

If we are talking about Influences on Jesus, lets not forget the possibility that he may have been a Rabbi. Influences available at that time are Kabbalah, Platonism/Neoplatonism, the Esseness, The Egyptian mysteries and others...

 

I personally see an incredible similarity between Platonic teachings and Christs teachings.

 

One author pointed out that if Neoplatonism is Platonism minus politics, then Christianity is Neoplatonism plus Jesus. Pick up something on the Enneads and check out how amazingly similar it is in many ways.

 

Also as far as I am concerned all these schools of thought flow from Egypt. They are the perennial tradition.

 

he may have been a Rabbi: Many authors have tried to domesticate him as a 'Rabbi', I am doubtful about it. I first came across this tack in Maccoby's The Myth-maker, an interesting study in which Jesus is portrayed as nice Jewish boy and the onus of creating Christianity is shifted to Paul, the myth maker of the title. You can find it here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mythmaker-Paul-Invention-Christianity/dp/0062505858

 

My personal favorite portrayal of Jesus is Jesus the Magician by Morton Smith. This is as close to a must read for anyone interested in Gnosticism and the magic of the period as it gets, and also, a compelling portrait of the "historical" Jesus. I don't accept it either, but I consider it a more likely approach than most. You can find it here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Magician-Charlatan-Son-God/dp/1569751552

 

Neoplatonism plus Jesus: Slight anachronism there Seth Ananda, technically it would have been Middle Platonism plus Jesus. That still leaves him in very good company. The life of Philo of Alexandria for example, perfectly brackets the life and ministry of Jesus, as well as the period of the Pauline epistles. You can read about him here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

 

One of the reasons why I haven't posted more in this thread, after giving it an enthusiastic welcome, was I noticed a tendency to treat Platonism as a late and extraneous interpretation of the Gospels. As far as I am concerned this is basically Protestant mythology, created as part of Reformation anti-Catholic rhetoric. I started to review my research in the 70s and 80s that lead me to this conclusion and to collect material to correct this, but did not have time to organize and post them. As my thinking evolved and this thread grew, I decided to put that material in its own thread, one which also addresses wider issues.

 

That is why I started "Platonism and Hellenistic Spirituality', which I hope to get back to shortly. I am also posting on Confucian qigong in the General Discussion Forum and so my time has to be split between them.

[Seth Ananda]

Neoplatonism plus Jesus: Slight anachronism there Seth Ananda, technically it would have been Middle Platonism plus Jesus.

 

Middle platonism, is that what you call it. Thanks. I was wondering what to say, but went with 'neo' as its after Plato...

 

Also, thanks for that reading list.

[xor]

I just watched an interesting documentary from the BBC which some might find of interest:

 

I watched this. The story about his traveling to Kashmir and being buried there was new to me, interesting.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Guest

[Apech]

Bump

 

Thread resurrection after 6 days.

 

I was going to start another thread on the Gospel of Mary but I was unable to find an online translation which was not copyrighted by the translator - so according to TBs rules I think copy pasting a whole text from elsewhere would need permission - but maybe I am being too cautious.

 

One thing I have been pondering is that although our societies are increasingly secular ( even in the US I think) the degree to which Christianity is embedded in our culture and in our ways of thinking is extraordinarily deep. I have detected in even those who espouse another religion/system that they still very often end up sounding quite Christian. I know Buddhists who seem quite Catholic and others very Protestant in their approach. I think in the past I would have dismissed this as a bad thing but now I'm not so sure. I think there are certain themes, memes and core ideas which come out of Christianity ... such as for instance the looking for endings ... the end of days ... the omega (of the alpha and omega) ... also the whole structure of intellectual debate about religion itself is very Church of England ... that somehow we are using ideas to position ourselves in relation to each other with a kind of politeness - and ecumenicalism where we try to say Christ and Buddha and Krishna and anyone else are somehow similar/the same/ reconcilable ... why do we bother with that unless we are trying to get our heads around a view which explains everything ... every view point held in one ... which is probably impossible anyway ... but I think that is culturally a very Christian thing to want to do.

 

For Christian Mysticism I think this is a problem. For me Christian Mysticism is formed around the the presence of Christ in our midst. We commune with Him and through Him get to the divine source. This because the presence is real. And oddly I say this as a practicing Buddhist, who spends much of his time studying Ancient Egypt, I Ching and Qi Gong etc. But to me it is a huge mistake to try to mash all these together. I am quite happy and capable of accepting the divine presence of Christ when I am lucky enough for it to emerge for me ... without question and with no attempt to then create a kind of reconciled overview for the the other things I experience and work on. Obviously there are cross references, sure of course but do we need a new universal system? No I don't think so ... what we need is more instances of immanence without worry because they are beyond our puny reason.

[Apech]

I have read views that Kwan Yin = Christ Consciousness. Could anyone speak to this view?

 

 

Also:

 

 

Christian Midsticism?

 

LOL.

 

I think you can say that Kwan Yin and Christ Consciousness are perhaps equivalent but you cannot say they are the same. This is the kind of thing that creates confusion (in my view). There is no need to say they are the same. They are separate lineages.

[Jeff]

I would agree that there is no need to say that they are the same. While the lineages may all ultimately lead to the same place, the "outer forms" and early stages are separated by culture, viewpoint and technique. In the past, I have been a major proponent of trying to show the parallels, as I see a great beauty to the symmetry of the traditions. I think part of the issue is that certain traditions do a much better of describing things in easy to understand terms.

[Apech]

I would agree that there is no need to say that they are the same. While the lineages may all ultimately lead to the same place, the "outer forms" and early stages are separated by culture, viewpoint and technique. In the past, I have been a major proponent of trying to show the parallels, as I see a great beauty to the symmetry of the traditions. I think part of the issue is that certain traditions do a much better of describing things in easy to understand terms.

 

I agree about parallels. It depends mostly I think whether you regard the traditions as things of the mind or more akin to living entities. So for instance you and I Jeff are similar in that we both have arms, legs and so on ... but we are different people. That's how I would go with Christ/Kwan Yin ... certainly no conflict there but 'the same' no ... and the only way to make them the same is to merge them into something new ... syncretism ... which again has happened in the past ... for instance Serapis in the ancient world was a Greekified Egyptian fusion of Osiris and Apis. I don't have a problem with this either but Osiris <> Serapis ... these are emergent new beings with a life of their own. If you think they are things of the mind then they are just 'made up' anyway so I suppose it doesn't matter. But the presence of Christ (or Kwan Yin, or Osiris) is not 'made up' and is not even (in my view) totally bound to the historical Jesus, it is beyond time and place.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Apech

[Jeff]

 

I agree about parallels. It depends mostly I think whether you regard the traditions as things of the mind or more akin to living entities. So for instance you and I Jeff are similar in that we both have arms, legs and so on ... but we are different people. That's how I would go with Christ/Kwan Yin ... certainly no conflict there but 'the same' no ... and the only way to make them the same is to merge them into something new ... syncretism ... which again has happened in the past ... for instance Serapis in the ancient world was a Greekified Egyptian fusion of Osiris and Apis. I don't have a problem with this either but Osiris <> Serapis ... these are emergent new beings with a life of their own. If you think they are things of the mind then they are just 'made up' anyway so I suppose it doesn't matter. But the presence of Christ (or Kwan Yin, or Osiris) is not 'made up' and is not even (in my view) totally bound to the historical Jesus, it is beyond time and place.

Interesting point. But, I would also argue that the percieved "separateness" is more dependent on the relative "depth" in consciousness/oneness. Things like light transmissions work because at a deep enough level in consciousness you and I are really the same being (and have no arms or legs). A Christ is one who has realized such depth and greater.

[Apech]

Interesting point. But, I would also argue that the percieved "separateness" is more dependent on the relative "depth" in consciousness/oneness. Things like light transmissions work because at a deep enough level in consciousness you and I are really the same being (and have no arms or legs). A Christ is one who has realized such depth and greater.

 

 

Hey! If I'm you and you're me - and I'm right and you're wrong ... then I'm wrong and you're right!!!!!!!!

[3bob]

Since when did Christ in principle or Christ in Jesus go beyond duality, even the refined duality of two in one? (along with being at the "right hand of God")

[Apech]

Since when did Christ in principle or Christ in Jesus go beyond duality, even the refined duality of two in one? (along with being at the "right hand of God")

 

'I am my father are one.' or the originating consciousness and the Christ consciousness are 'not-two'.

[Jeff]

 

 

Hey! If I'm you and you're me - and I'm right and you're wrong ... then I'm wrong and you're right!!!!!!!!

 

At that depth, one is beyond "mind" and there is no concept of right and wrong.

[Apech]

 

At that depth, one is beyond "mind" and there is no concept of right and wrong.

 

 

That's what they all say.

[Jeff]

Since when did Christ in principle or Christ in Jesus go beyond duality, even the refined duality of two in one? (along with being at the "right hand of God")

As Apech mentioned, it is also in many places...

 

1 Corinthians 12:11, 12 KJV

"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."

[3bob]

Ime "Three in one" (Trinity) or "two in one" aspects are not the same as the core point of "eastern type" paths such as "Vedanta" or "Buddhist" non-duality - no matter how much we might like them to be so or how much interesting and well versed correlating one might do. The "light worlds" and "light transmissions" are not non-dual, they may be of super refined heavenly worlds or of "oneness" type states but they are still not truly non-dual by their very nature. To talk about or echo about non-duality takes coming back to duality... (aka problematic) Yes, I've studied dozens of teachings like those being quoted here for around 40 years and see such as making a stretch, a stretch that Jesus himself did not teach. (via light transmissions or in any other way) He remains a Golden-White light Being and torch in the worlds of light along with a creator God in cosmic time... nothing at all wrong with that but such is not Brahman or the Self beyond attributes (as Vedanta says in various ways) or beyond aggregates (as Buddhism says in various ways). Btw, many of us have seen the horrible arguments and divisions among people trying to make correlations between Vedanta and Buddhism, so that is another super mess in itself! (and I try to let it be)

 

So "What is a soul to do" find out and prove out for itself.

 

Edit: aggregates

Edited September 16, 2013 by 3bob

[Apech]

Ime "Three in one" (Trinity) or "two in one" aspects are not the same as the core point of "eastern type" paths such as "Vedanta" or "Buddhist" non-duality - no matter how much we might like them to be so or how much interesting and well versed correlating one might do. The "light worlds" and "light transmissions" are not non-dual, they may be of super refined heavenly worlds or of "oneness" type states but they are still not truly non-dual by their very nature. To talk about or echo about non-duality takes coming back to duality... (aka problematic) Yes, I've studied dozens of teachings like those being quoted here for around 40 years and see such as making a stretch, a stretch that Jesus himself did not teach. (via light transmissions or in any other way) He remains a Golden-White light Being and torch in the worlds of light along with a creator God in cosmic time... nothing at all wrong with that but such is not Brahman or the Self beyond attributes (as Vedanta says in various ways) or beyond congregates (as Buddhism says in various ways). Btw, many of us have seen the horrible arguments and divisions among people trying to make correlations between Vedanta and Buddhism, so that is another super mess in itself! (and I try to let it be)

 

So "What is a soul to do" find out and prove out for itself.

 

3bob,

 

I think all your points are well made and I agree with two of them. I think that the heavenly light subtle realm is not the same as the non-dual. I agree that the arguments about who has a better system of thought is completely fruitless and messy. Every system/religion portrays itself as the holder of a 'superior' view form time to time but actually it is the personal connection to the tradition which counts. So it is fruitless to argue apart from as an exercise in intellectual muscle toning perhaps.

 

I have been taught specifically that 'I and my father are one' and the Trinity are non-dual teachings (I can explain this if you wish). I think perhaps that the problem can be that in eastern teachings these things are explicitly stated while in the west they are hidden in parable and symbolic significance.

[Jeff]

Ime "Three in one" (Trinity) or "two in one" aspects are not the same as the core point of "eastern type" paths such as "Vedanta" or "Buddhist" non-duality - no matter how much we might like them to be so or how much interesting and well versed correlating one might do. The "light worlds" and "light transmissions" are not non-dual, they may be of super refined heavenly worlds or of "oneness" type states but they are still not truly non-dual by their very nature. To talk about or echo about non-duality takes coming back to duality... (aka problematic) Yes, I've studied dozens of teachings like those being quoted here for around 40 years and see such as making a stretch, a stretch that Jesus himself did not teach. (via light transmissions or in any other way) He remains a Golden-White light Being and torch in the worlds of light along with a creator God in cosmic time... nothing at all wrong with that but such is not Brahman or the Self beyond attributes (as Vedanta says in various ways) or beyond congregates (as Buddhism says in various ways). Btw, many of us have seen the horrible arguments and divisions among people trying to make correlations between Vedanta and Buddhism, so that is another super mess in itself! (and I try to let it be)

 

So "What is a soul to do" find out and prove out for itself.

Hi 3bob,

 

I would agree that gnostic Christianity (and specifically what I have been saying) is not a Brahman style description. If anything, it is much closer to Buddhism with Jesus being the equivalent of a Buddha. He is "one with God", yet he is a "son/child of God". Jesus (and he teachings) are about us becoming "one in Christ".

 

Regarding your comments on nonduality, are you using the Buddhist meaning of the word or the "oneness" meaning of the word? In a light transmission, the being "giving it" operates from a level of oneness with all beings, but from the perception of the "receiver", they are obviously operating at a level of duality.

 

Finally, I.completely agree that what a "soul to do" is that everyone should "go inside" and find out the truth for themselves.

[3bob]

Brahman (thus not Lord Brahma) with the words "neti, neti" as sometimes being used.

 

Whereas-as Lord Brahma= creator, or a major aspect along with Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva all working in time and space, thus having no power over Brahman. (btw, in some schools Shiva = Brahman)

 

"three in one" is of all time and space.

 

Buddhism is much farther away in comparison between major concepts with Christianity.

Edited September 16, 2013 by 3bob

[Jeff]

Brahman or "neti, neti"

 

Lord Brahma= creator, or a major aspect along with Vishnu and Shiva working in all time and space, thus no power over Brahman. (btw, in some schools Shiva = Brahman)

 

"three in one" is of all time and space.

 

Buddhism is much farther away in comparison between major concepts with Christianity.

Hi 3bob,

 

Could you further explain what you mean by... "three in one" is of all time and space...? As it seems to be important to your position. Also, can you point to any place in the words of Jesus (any cannon or gnostic gospel) which supports this concept?

 

The concept of the Holy Trinity was not introduced until around the 300s with the shift of the church to Roman control.