Thursday, July 25, 2019
2:15 a.m. Saying 110.
- Jesus said: Whoever has found the world and become rich should renounce the world.
Finding the world, becoming rich, renouncing the world. Seems like it ought to be obvious, but not quite.
Well, try this. The prior saying referred to the man who found a buried treasure. What should that man have renounced, and why? And remember, these sayings are not simple maxims for living, but are aimed at giving life more abundantly.
I get a vague sense of it meaning, having seen through it, he should cease to believe in it.
That’s closer, but not quite. More like, having found, he should cease to continue to seek. That is, having found, he should recognize that he found what he sought, and should renounce further seeking for what was found, not further seeking per se.
That sounds like a stretch.
Not for the first time. does that mean it isn’t right?
It means, I don’t have the confidence in this interpretation that I have had in others.
Let’s proceed, then, and see if it becomes clearer and more convincing in light of its surroundings.
Saying 111 a. Jesus said: The earth and sky will roll up right in front of you. Anyone living from the living will not die.
“Living from the living.” What can that mean?
As opposed, surely, to living from the dead, or let’s say living rooted in life as opposed to living rooted in what is dead. And here words are in danger of misleading us, in that words maintain a division between living and dead which is really a division between one form of living and another. Matter – the 3D world in its entirety – is alive. There is nothing dead anywhere, ever. But for the purposes of observation and comparison, you see the distinction between animate and inanimate.
Jesus is saying, I take it, “If you are based in the 3D, you are based in the ephemeral and transient, and are built upon shifting sands,” so to speak.
That’s right. Know the world; live in the world; become rich – but don’t identify with the world, for it will “roll up” – that is, will show its insufficiency, its impermanence – and there you will be, believing in it or not.
And I take it “become rich” as you use it cannot refer to amassing the things of the 3D.
Of course not. It refers to your becoming rich in the sense of knowing and employing the richness of what you are and can grow into.
Saying 111 b. Doesn’t Jesus say that the world is not worthy of one who finds himself?
111 b is odd in that it refers to what Jesus said, rather than relates what Jesus said.
Again, remember that these sayings were talking-points. It isn’t a slip.
Okay, I see that.
- Jesus said: Woe to the flesh dependent on the soul; woe to the soul dependent on the flesh.
Doesn’t this refer to the lop-sidedness of anyone trying to live in 3D only or non-3D only?
That’s a valid interpretation. It isn’t described as a moral failing; more like a fault in construction. Someone in such a fix may not be to blame, but will nonetheless suffer. So – in short – don’t let yourself be caught in that condition.
Are we going to finish today?
- They asked him: When is the Kingdom coming? He replied: It is not coming in an easily observable manner. People will not be saying, “Look, it’s over here” or “Look, it’s over there.” Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is already spread out on the earth, and people aren’t aware of it.
This one is well understood, you would think. More of a recapitulation than a new idea, or even reminder.
“It is not coming in an easily observable manner.” That is the key here. That is what has been going on all along. Jesus is showing them – showing anyone able and willing to see – that they have within themselves the ability to connect, immediately, intimately, integrally, of right. But no one can coerce anyone into it, nor can carry them either. It is up to each.
It doesn’t have to be earned, but does have to be desired and paid for.
Yes, only “paid for” not – as you say – by being earned, but by being willing to make whatever sacrifices are required. Sacrifices of contrary desires, attachments, even ideas.
And so we come to the final saying.
[After I finished the session, I read the translator’s notes, which assert that saying 114 was added at a later date. Maybe so. Certainly 113 nicely rounds off what was said to that point, and 114 does have a sort of tacked-on feel to it. But just because it may have been tacked on doesn’t justify us in disregarding it, problematic though it may be. At any rate, the guys took it seriously enough to discuss.]
Saying 114. Simon Peter said to them: Mary should leave us because women are not worthy of the life. Jesus responded: Look, I’ll lead her in order to make her male so that she can become a living spirit as you males are. For each woman who makes herself male will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And you are torn, thinking maybe this one is too deep for an end-of-session examination, yet seeing half an hour at least available. Cold feet?
Yes, maybe. For a summation, it is pretty tangled with what seem like unexplained new ideas.
List the elements; you will find it easier to examine that way.
Simon Peter; Mary; women not worthy of the life; “make her male”; “can become a living spirit as you males are”; women who make themselves male.
Surely you don’t think this is as simple as biology, or else Jesus is advocating a biological impossibility. And it isn’t a matter of reincarnation, as in saying women must first come into a male life before they can enter the kingdom. You see that. So what does it mean?
It hinges on what it means to make oneself male, and I haven’t a clue. I wonder if this didn’t mean something to that time that would have been obvious to them and is lost to us now.
So that of all the sayings, this scripture happens to end on the only one that cannot be explained?
I know, but it could conceivably be meant to remind us that there’s still plenty more we don’t know.
You are making it harder than it is. What is it to be male? Biologically.
Males impregnate; women gestate.
In terms of reproduction, that is right. So, the analogy here?
There is a way of experiencing the world that is essentially male?
Let’s say – oh, we’ll say it for you, and you can decide if you agree. Males seek new worlds to conquer; females seek to encompass the world they find.
Of course any such generalization is going to meet objection. It’s way too – general. Too one-size-fits-all.
But that is only because you are confusing male with masculine; female with feminine.
So clarify it for us.
It is several layers of confusion. First, biological. As you know, everyone contains both masculine and feminine traits and characteristics. Psychology has learned that much, anyway. Jung’s anima and animus are concepts derived to explain what he had observed in a lifetime of being a doctor caring for patients.
Second, social. Every society prescribes rules and behaviors for each sex, pretending, of necessity, that male equals masculine and female equals feminine, but then acknowledging explicitly or tacitly that these simple divisions are too simple. Thus in one way or another each society will acknowledge that there are males who are predominantly feminine and females who are predominantly masculine. This is a form of legislation by default, or let’s say almost legislation by pretense, by convenient fiction.
Third, there is psychology itself, or let’s say definition by experience. You all know yourselves to be somewhere on a sliding scale, and you may experience yourselves moving or seeming to move along that scale, depending upon what you unearth as you explore your being. Just as you cannot be all feminine or all masculine, so you cannot see or expect to see only from one point of view and be whole.
But surely this is about more than point of view.
Is it? Re-read the saying.
If it meant simply that, why wouldn’t it say, as well, that the men had to be led to make themselves female, for the same reason?
Go back to the listing you made and re-read it. what does it mean, “a living spirit as you males are”?
I don’t know.
What do males exemplify that females do not, but might?
You’re going to have to tell us.
Look at the words! Living spirit. As opposed to what? Dead spirit?
No, I see it. Is this what you mean?
Try it on.
If men represent living spirit, the compliment would be women representing living souls. Men more abstract, women more concrete. Men more far-ranging, women more centered.
A perfectly valid distinction, provided that you not confuse men, males, and masculine (as the society Jesus lived in did, perhaps), nor female, women, feminine. No either/or ever adequately represents reality, although dualism strongly inclines you to see things that way.
I can see that we’re going to have to discuss this further.
We’re smiling. Just because a closer look lands you in hot water because of your society’s hot-buttons does not mean it’s wrong. But yes, one more discussion at least, and you will be able to lay down this task.
Several others have profited by it. you have their thanks as well. I look forward to next time, and perhaps closure on Thomas.
There are always other scriptures to revisit. However, we don’t insist. In the past ten weeks, we have given anyone who wishes it all the clues needed to understand the hidden meanings. For that matter, remembering Jesus’ intent is itself enough, if applied.
Okay, till next time.