Jesus said: Be one of those who pass by.
I have read somewhere that this means, be but a sojourner on the earth – or, more precisely, I guess: Recognize that that’s what we are. We are here for a while but that’s all, for a while. Is there more to it that I am not seeing?
Remember, these sayings were springboards for discussion. The previous saying said what?
If you have little, you’ll lose even that. If you have some, you will get more.
Nonsensical on the face of it, is it not?
It is, a little. What is little to one is some to another. But of course that is my paraphrase, not a straight rendering.
But look at the problem there. We already dealt with one aspect of that saying, but we implied it was more all-or-none than a matter of degree. Looked at as a matter of degree, what determines whether you will be given more or will lose even what you have?
On the principle of the widow’s mite being more to her than the rich man’s money to him?
Could the difference be attitude?
You’re on the right trail. Pursue it.
Maybe, to him who has little and doesn’t value it, it will be taken away, and to he who has little and does value it, more will be given?
It is at least worth your considering.
So it is. Okay, so, in connection with saying 42?
Which do you think is more likely to be one who “passes by,” one who does value the gift of awareness or the one who does not?
Awareness? Is that the word?
Call it what you wish, the idea is the same. Awareness, the kingdom, potential, whatever.
The answer is obvious, of course.
You might ask yourselves, why be a passer-by?
I presume so we do not become overly attached to a life that can only be transient.
And what would be the disadvantage of being overly attached?
You’d have your eye off the ball, and you’d be more likely to get beaned by it.
Minus the sports analogy (from a surprising source), that’s it. If you don’t know what’s going on, you don’t know what’s important, and if you don’t know what’s important, you don’t know what to prize and what to let go. You wind up running in circles, or sleeping away your life. And that’s enough.
His disciples asked him: Who are you to say these things to us? Jesus replied: Don’t you recognize who I am from what I say to you? You have become like the Jews who like the tree but loathe its fruit, or they like the fruit but loathe the tree.
What strikes you about it, as you read it?
Well, a couple of things. The set-up, for one: them asking “Who are you to be saying these things?” Jesus comparing them to “the Jews” rather than to, say, the scribes or Pharisees. Given that presumably this saying was heard by Jews, written down by Jews, delivered orally to, and discussed by, Jews, it seems strange. It would be like someone saying to me, “You are like those Americans,” or “like those ____.” [Fill in the blank with any description that would include me.] The admonition itself is clear enough, though not why it should be preserved as a saying. And – before you ask – the previous saying reminds them to know that they are sojourners here in 3D, not permanent residents.
All right. So let’s begin with what to you is obvious. Tree and its fruits must be the same, and it makes no sense to like the cause and dislike the effect, or like the father and dislike the son. Put another way, it makes no sense to like the emanation and dislike what it emanates from. Agreed? It isn’t a matter even of “should,” but of common sense.
Say it’s so.
Then, if the tree is the non-3D source of life and the fruit is someone in 3D, isn’t that what you would be doing if you claimed to like the one and dislike the other?
But in practical terms we do that all the time.
Yes, whenever you judge one another.
Huh. Further fruit of eating of the tree of Perceiving Things As Good and Evil.
Correct. As the Buddha says, “make a distinction, make an error.” But he didn’t say you have a real choice in the doing so, only that it would be well to recognize the fact.
Okay, and so –.
So it isn’t as if Jesus was complaining that the disciples disliked him or disliked the father that they hadn’t yet really consciously experienced: They didn’t. But he was telling them something. What?
He said don’t you recognize who I am by what I say to you? I suppose that has to mean, “If you were really hearing me, you’d know that I am in connection with the father” – the larger being – I presume. But although I get that this is relevant, I’m not sure I really see the relevance, quite.
If your true nature is as sojourners in the 3D, by implication your true nature is rooted outside of the 3D. And if to live life more abundantly you need to know who and what you are, you need to have your eyes open. If, having your eyes open, you can’t see the source of Jesus’ teaching “with authority,” you show that you are still divided in your mind, not seeing the obvious fact that the tree and the fruit must share the same nature. And of course, it was the message of Jesus that they themselves also shared that nature, not that he was one thing and they a different order of things.
So why say, “You are like the Jews who –“?
You are accustomed to people using the word “Jews” as an imprecation; obviously this wasn’t an issue then and there. He meant to distinguish between themselves on the one hand and the gentiles on the other. It might be paraphrased as “even the Jews, who ought to know better as participants in the covenant.”
You never cease to surprise me. I wouldn’t have thought of that interpretation.
Unless you just did.
Very funny. Well, if it was my own unconscious mind, it’s impressive anyway.
We didn’t quite say that; we are saying (again!) that the difference between everyone’s unconscious and anything they may contact in non-3D is far less clear and definite than you may assume.
Okay, we’ve gotten that, at least in theory.
It will be better when you absorb it to the extent of assuming it rather than having to call it to mind. Any other questions about the saying?
I suppose not. As so often, it is striking how I begin not knowing, in effect talk to myself, and emerge knowing. I recognize that the “knowing” may be wrong, but it is still a knowing. It requires an effort to remember the years when it was not so. Shall we go on to saying 44?
Perhaps another time when you are fresh. Too many turns may be difficult.
I take that to mean, it’s hard for us to absorb more than a certain amount at a time.
That, but more specifically, it is hard for you to preserve the mental flexibility required when you have already exercised it. Hard for you to recognize, we know. That’s why we mention it.
That tells me that the process isn’t as transparent as I’m likely to think of it as being.
Few things are. Living in 3D requires skills unsuspected merely because you all master them so completely that you no longer notice them.