Saturday, June 15, 2019
3:15 a.m. Saying 40, then? It has its interesting points.
40 Jesus said: A grapevine was planted outside of the Father but, as it did not strengthen, they will pull it up by its roots and it will die.
Grapevine – for wine, presumably. “Outside of the Father,” and who is the “they” who will uproot it? And what does the grapevine signify to them, that it may not to us? Previous Saying compares the literalists and the disciples, and cautions the disciples to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves by comparison.
You’re learning. You see what a good practice it is to automatically connect the present subject with its preceding context.
What do you suppose it means, “outside of the Father?”
I suppose I was thinking that nothing not rooted in the higher self – or perhaps even more basic than that, in the non-3D – would thrive. But as I write that, I see it is a shallow understanding. (It really does pay to put full attention on things.) Jesus was in the habit of describing himself as identical to the Father, or – let’s say, indistinguishable. “I and the father are one.” People later came to think that meant Jesus was uniquely divine – “the only begotten son of God,” but I’m not aware of him making any such claim. I have taken “I and the father are one” to mean that he in 3D was in full connection with his non-3D self, not only the extension of his human self into non-3D but the source of the 3D/non-3D person, the “father” whose will he strove to do in preference to doing his own will. That certainly says he and the father were not the same thing, does it not? We are not in the habit of saying “I and my kneecap are one,” though come to think of it, if the kneecap were able to speak perhaps it would regard us in that way, I don’t know. Anyway, Jesus seemed to regard the father to whom he taught the disciples to pray, in the only prayer he is recorded to have recommended, as the loving creator of humans, in intimate connection with them, whose will could be ascertained and ought to be followed. I don’t think he ever said, “follow me” so much as “follow my example,” or “walk in my path.”
Very good. You see the enhanced fluency this morning?
I do. This would not have come last night, would it? A matter of fatigue?
Never mind the why, for the moment. Let us continue with the matter in hand. So what was the grapevine planted “outside of the Father,” and who planted it?
Well, I was sort of relying on you to tell us what the grapevine was. A tradition, perhaps? An interpolation? A proposed source of nourishment or encouragement or even of intoxication for us?
Bearing in mind that the grapevine is a symbol, it may mean any and all of those things. In any case it is clearly a living thing that was meant to flourish but did not do so.
I suppose, in context, it might be a religious tradition established by the scribes and Pharisees that was planted in logic and commandments and blind faith rather than in the living will of the non-3D Father as could be lived as Jesus was living it and was teaching those who could hear him to listen to it.
All right. So, “it did not strengthen.”
They had authority and tradition going for them – and the power of coercion, perhaps, but in any case surely the power of their position. They had scholarly logic, and they knew all the verses by heart, and the arguments over the years. They had everything that 3D conditions could provide (except, perhaps, the Inquisition, though they had a non-coercive equivalent) – and still the way of thinking and being that they promoted “did not thrive.”
Actually it was the people following this regime who did not thrive. But yes, that is the sense of it. The tradition and learning and social support – and good intentions no less, and earnest striving, for there was as much of that then as now or ever – did not suffice to provide life more abundantly, not to lead the way toward it.
I see that, easily enough. The spirit gives life, but literalism kills, to paraphrase the scripture.
Literalism is always an interment. It may begin as earnest attempt at preservation, but if what is preserved is not used, worked, struggled with, its meaning goes dead on you. It is not enough to blindly obey nor to blindly reverence nor to blindly have faith. The blind lead the blind into a ditch, do they not? That is as true considered internally, as one’s thought processes, as between individuals.
So who is the “they” who will pull up this vine by the roots and let it die?
They who planted it, surely, or at any rate they who inherited from them one way or another.
Yes, that makes sense. So even the rationalists and the literalists will come to see the error of their ways?
They will lose hope (and faith) in that attempt. That is not the same thing as saying they will then understand where the vine ought to have been planted.
I’m getting that you mean, they having given up on their attempts at blind faith planted in reason and traditions, may give up the attempt at meaning. Thus, today’s materialistic disbelief in even the existence, let alone the primacy, of the non-3D aspect of the world, let alone any question of human relation to any concept of divinity, or even of any relation to any intelligent non-3D inherent connection to us.
And is this not where your civilization is?
And has been for some while. I suppose we are a people who largely believe in nothing.
Nihil, nothing: Hence nihilism, acknowledged or not. And that is Saying 40, and we may proceed at another time.
All right. Our thanks as always. This was particularly interesting to me.
That is partly because you are beginning to experience the flow. Be well. This is said to one and all, with special reference to those who do not feel well, and in the particulars in which they experience that unwellness.
Richard Bach said we are perfect expressions of perfect love.
And in so saying, he was speaking the plain truth. But knowing it is not experiencing it. Live it.
Okay. Next time, 41.