Gospel of Thomas

[Apech]

29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit,

it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the

body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this

great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

 

Thanks to everyone for the contributions and comments (keep them coming).

[9th]

I apologize if I have jumped to any conclusion. But, if you join us in the discussion of the Gospel of Thomas, I think you will find that it does not advocate a master/slave dynamic. Additionally, I offer these words from the canonical bible, regarding the point.

 

So you apologize, and then continue to jump to the same conclusion? That is odd!

 

Again, I am not saying that christianity or the bible is an advocation of master/slave dynamics. Im not sure how to make that any more clear. It seems your identification with these teachings may be clouding your perceptions a bit.

 

Such dynamics are only applicable in terms of what particular people do with teachings of any kind.

[Jeff]

Hi 9th,

 

I am also somewhat confused about the direction of this side discussion...

 

As you stated about the dynamics...

....

Devotional practice may or may not have such dynamics, and the devotional form is the model for people who worship the figure of Christ.

...

 

In my post, I was specifically trying to make the point that the Gospel of Thomas does not support such master/slave dynamics (and provide supporting details). I was not trying to imply that you think that it does.

 

In your words, you are describing in "general" and I am presenting my opinion on the "specific", as we are describing in this thread. Additionally, I was saying that it would be nice if you would join us in the discussion. And, as we go through the Gospel of Thomas, I believe that you (and the thread readers in general) will move from the "may or may not" position.

[Jeff]

29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit,

it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the

body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this

great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

 

I think this is an interesting and profound verse in which he is describing our situation. For me, the description parallels verse 50...

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

 

It could be described we are "beings of light" or "children of God" and it is amazing that we manifest (or take) physical form. But, when we find our way back home, that is truly amazing and wonderful.

 

And anyone who has realized that motion = rest and rest = motion, will discover the "kingdom of God".

 

(edit - font change)

Edited January 29, 2014 by Jeff

[Apech]

29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit,

it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the

body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this

great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

 

I think this is an interesting and profound verse in which he is describing our situation. For me, the description parallels verse 50...

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

 

It could be described we are "beings of light" or "children of God" and it is amazing that we manifest (or take) physical form. But, when we find our way back home, that is truly amazing and wonderful.

 

And anyone who has realized that motion = rest and rest = motion, will discover the "kingdom of God".

 

(edit - font change)

 

 

I was just musing to myself that I like that word 'wonder' - because it sounds like one-der ... i.e. an act of unification. So the spirit can manifest as flesh by drawing itself together so to speak and then to imagine the body giving rise to the spirit that would turn the whole thing inside out ... a wonder of wonders.

 

Great wealth I think refers to the creative energy of spirit and the body poverty ... which I guess means it does not have anything to give of itself and is just a vessel of the spirit.

 

Clearly this is refuting any materialist view and giving primacy to spirit ... as you would expect ... which leaves us all rather stranded in the this current world since no-one hardly believes in spirit except as some kind of metaphor any more.

[9th]

Hi 9th,

 

I am also somewhat confused about the direction of this side discussion...

 

As you stated about the dynamics...

 

In my post, I was specifically trying to make the point that the Gospel of Thomas does not support such master/slave dynamics (and provide supporting details). I was not trying to imply that you think that it does.

 

It still seems odd to debate against something that isnt advocated in the first place, but perhaps thats just me.

 

 

Clearly this is refuting any materialist view and giving primacy to spirit ... as you would expect ... which leaves us all rather stranded in the this current world since no-one hardly believes in spirit except as some kind of metaphor any more.

 

The spirit is indeed much richer in experience than the body, it is not nearly as limited in what it can perceive or do.

[Apech]

The spirit is indeed much richer in experience than the body, it is not nearly as limited in what it can perceive or do.

 

It could be said that the body is a store house of experience, whereas the Spirit has the potential for infinite 'experience' ... although perhaps experience is not quite the right word since there is nothing 'ex' to the spirit.

[9th]

although perhaps experience is not quite the right word since there is nothing 'ex' to the spirit.

 

nothing is ever the "right" word

[Cueball]

 

9th, on 27 Jan 2014 - 01:32, said:

 

The master/slave dynamic is problematic from the very beginning. This is what Osho was referring to. But the idea of "shaktipat" and also "satsang" is extremely common in the east. It is the basis of guru yoga, and bhakti and so forth. In fact, the model of devotion to a divine master is also what Christianity itself adopted during the founding of the church. In the gospel of thomas, we see conflicting comments, i.e. "Jesus said, 'I am not your master...'". and then "Jesus said, 'Come unto me, for my yoke is easy and my lordship is mild...'".

 

 

Jeff, on 27 Jan 2014 - 03:24, said:

 

I would disagree with characterization of it being a master/slave dynamic. A Christ is more like a divine teacher who shares of himself. The surrender dynamic is not about slavery, it is about "letting go".

 

The question for me is… even without a guru, devotional figure/ishta/yidam, can one have a relationship with the light that doesn't sometimes call into question the same kinds of stuff that crops up in those situations?

 

My feeling is it's quite hard to avoid certain issues in practice - even where they're not characterised as master/slave, there's still rather a lot at stake to dismiss such possibilities. I don't know much about Osho but I thought his point was good.

 

[Cueball]

Clearly this is refuting any materialist view and giving primacy to spirit ... as you would expect ... which leaves us all rather stranded in the this current world since no-one hardly believes in spirit except as some kind of metaphor any more.

 

The body and material existence in general get quite a bashing elsewhere too:

 

"This world is a corpse-eater. All the things eaten in it themselves die also. Truth is a life-eater. Therefore no one nourished by truth will die."

(Gospel of Philip)

 

'Stranded' in the world is a good way of putting it:

 

"Wise men of old gave the soul a feminine name. Indeed she is female in her nature as well. She even has her womb.

As long as she was alone with the father, she was virgin and in form androgynous. But when she fell down into a body and came to this life, then she fell into the hands of many robbers. And the wanton creatures passed her from one to another and [...] her. Some made use of her by force, while others did so by seducing her with a gift. In short, they defiled her, and she [...] her virginity."

(The Exegesis on the Soul)

Edited February 4, 2014 by Cueball

[Apech]

 

The question for me is… even without a guru, devotional figure/ishta/yidam, can one have a relationship with the light that doesn't sometimes call into question the same kinds of stuff that crops up in those situations?

 

My feeling is it's quite hard to avoid certain issues in practice - even where they're not characterised as master/slave, there's still rather a lot at stake to dismiss such possibilities. I don't know much about Osho but I thought his point was good.

 

Religious/spiritual texts borrow from worldly images ... such as Christ the 'King', the 'Lord' and so on which is language from our feudal past. If however you look at the function ... such as kingship ... that is perhaps a person who stands for the highest principles or who exercise 'divine will' and so on ... you can see why the imagery is used. Indeed in medieval Europe a subject was said the 'love his king (or lord)' which meant something like taking that which the monarch embodied as the highest.

 

In Christian mysticism you are in effect joining the lineage of Christ the King and accepting him as the true master and your Lord. Oddly this lineage extends back beyond the historical Jesus as the sacrificial or wounded king. It is not however master/slave but more like king and loving followers.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Apech

[Cueball]

Hi Apech, good points... especially that gnostic lineages go back further than the figure of Christ. (Using 'gnostic' and 'lineage' in a loose sense here, as the Thomas text and others are likely from multiple sources).

 

So it's more than about accepting Christ as your master and Lord - rather recognising him as a tremendously helpful (and potentially salvific) emanation of light. But there are other emanations… so Christ wasn't the be all and end all of the gnostic practice.

 

A view of Christ as your Lord or loving King is still more representative of the exoteric path of Christianity, rather than the meat and potatoes, the gnocchi in the gnosticism, if you get me. But there are many shades of grey and I get your point.

 

Being immersed in bhakti (even with such a 'pure' source of light that is outside of the master/slave dynamic) can lead to some of the issues in that Osho excerpt, which I think was the point 9th was making, and one that I find interesting.

 

Sorry if this is veering off-topic ;-)

Edited February 4, 2014 by Cueball

[Jeff]

...

 

'Stranded' in the world is a good way of putting it:

 

"Wise men of old gave the soul a feminine name. Indeed she is female in her nature as well. She even has her womb.

...

 

Not sure that I agree that "stranded" is a good way to put it. But, I do think that you have touched on something very important in...

 

"Wise men of old gave the soul a feminine name. Indeed she is female in her nature as well. She even has her womb."

 

One's soul is often the opposite sex of one's physical body. For a male to "realize", they must to come to know both sides of their nature (same and opposite for a woman). The womb is where the "higher being" is "created".

 

Best wishes.

[Apech]

30) Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods.

Where there are two or one, I am with him."

 

 

Sorry for the long wait I must have nodded off.

 

I have no real idea what no. 30 means except it sounds like when you wait ages for a bus and then two turn up at once. LOL.

[Jeff]

30) Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods.

Where there are two or one, I am with him."

 

 

 

This one is definitely harder to understand with just the words given. It is important to remember that like most traditions, the words of the Gospel of Thomas were meant to taught it the environment of a teacher.

 

 

The verse is specifically focused on the deeper layers of mind/consciousness. As one dives deeper into consciousness/mind, one starts to see and experience "divine beings". Many traditions even have astral schools were one can learn in grow. The first sentence is pointing stating that though it is a lofty realm, it is not "it" or as Jesus says "one with the Father". It is still the realm of mind/consciousness.

 

 

The second sentence points to the "bridal chamber" as described in other verses. Rather than two separate people, Jesus is pointing to the two "aspects" of a person that become one in the bridal chamber, and that he is "there" to help and support. The point is also touched on in verse 106...

 

 

106. Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become children of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will move."

 

 

A child of Adam is also a "son of God".

 

 

Best wishes.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Jeff

[Yae]

The Father - Truth - Upper Dan Tien

 

The Son - Love - Middle Dan Tien

 

The Holy Spirit - Energy - Lower Dan TIen

[Jeff]

The Father - Truth - Upper Dan Tien

 

The Son - Love - Middle Dan Tien

 

The Holy Spirit - Energy - Lower Dan TIen

 

Hi Bluemind,

 

In Christian mysticism, the mappings are not seen like that. The "power" of the Holy Spirit would be more like descending from beyond/above the upper Dan Tien and filling downward. Kind of "igniting" what some call Kundalini. The Father is more like the concept of the Buddhist "ultimate emptiness" and is not manifest in creation. The Son is more like a fully realized Buddha.

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Jeff]

Any broader interest in continuing this thread?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[Jeff]

Thought it might be time to move on to the next verse... Any thoughts?


31. Jesus said, "No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don't cure those who know them."

Edited January 23, 2015 by Jeff

[dawei]

Thought it might be time to move on to the next verse... Any thoughts?

 

 

31. Jesus said, "No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don't cure those who know them."

 

It can create a "Conflict of Interest"

[Brian]

Familiarity breeds contempt? The sage (or apostle) should expect disrespect from those who believe they have a priori knowledge of "who the sage really is?"

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Thought it might be time to move on to the next verse... Any thoughts?


31. Jesus said, "No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don't cure those who know them."

 

My thoughts?

 

Amen!

...

[Jeff]

31. Jesus said, "No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don't cure those who know them."

 

This verse to points out to me that It is particularly challenging, as people "judge" from their own perspective... And for most, that perspective is trapped as memories from the past, being projected into the future.

 

Rather than realizing that for a Prophet, there is only the full and open response of the "moment"...

[Jeff]

Thought I might try to resurrect the thread. Anyone interested...?

 

32. Jesus said, "A city built on a high hill and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden."

 

Thoughts?

[KenBrace]

Here's a resource for the Gospel of Thomas http://www.sacred-te.../chr/thomas.htm and it doesn't say copyright for the translation but 'available to the net' - so I guess its all right for us to copy.

 

 

 

First two parts for discussion ....

 

This gospel reveals a more "taoist" version of Jesus. Whenever I bring this issue up with Christians they usually shrug it off quite easily not realizing that part of their Bible is missing. They are trusting the decision made by Catholics years ago regarding which gospels remained.