TGU and Thomas, Sayings 85, 86, 87

Saying 85

Jesus said: Adam came into being from enormous power and wealth, but he was never worthy of you, for had he been worthy of you he would not have died.

The first part seems evident, the second part not evident, in fact not understandable.

Well, explain what you seem to understand.

Adam – taking “Adam” as our ultimate ancestor, as in the mythos from Genesis – brought to his 3D life all the resources of the larger non-3D world from which he was created. “Enormous power and wealth.” Presumably he entered without the luggage of past lives elsewhere, though come to think of it that is nowhere stated.

And, what you don’t understand?

What does “worthy of you” mean? What does it mean that if he had been “worthy of you” he would not have died? It implies that the disciples have something (beyond living at that moment) that Adam had not had, taking Adam as a real person and not a mythological symbol

Pursue that hint. What did the disciples of Jesus – those he was directly talking to, and those that would come in time – what did they have that Adam did not?

You’re going to have to help us here beyond pointing the way, I think.

Then sink into the phrase “worthy of you.” Recalibrate around that, and see. So, slow way down.

[I did.]

I begin to wonder if this is a mistranslation.

Your suggested alternative?

Something like, “worth imitating,” or “worth emulating.”

A little more. Try again.

Oh. I get the sense of it. Adam – symbol or perhaps real human ancestor; it hardly matters which – came in with such potential, but the disciples would find Adam insufficient as an example and even as a resource. They were in some way beyond him.

Yes, and you can hardly expect that to mean that “progress” or “evolution” had enabled them to surpass him, so what does it mean that if he had been worthy of them (had been a worthy example to emulate) “he would not have died”?

It must mean that they had something – or that Adam had overlooked or lost or never had something – that would have let him live. Does this mean that Adam did not become immortal, did not crystallize?

If you think of “Adam” as a symbol it may be easier, less shocking, for you to consider. The 3D soul that was Adam certainly continued after that 3D life ended, so what can this mean?

Cayce, I think it was, claimed that Jesus was the reincarnated Adam, out to fulfill his mission and atone for his error in not following his divine promptings. And that’s one thing that has always bothered me about this kind of exploration: People say so many things, often mutually contradictory, sometimes self-contradictory, and always with certainty.

Yes, but your irritation aside, and without worrying about whose word you might contradict, what might it mean, that Adam “would not have died”? In what sense did he die; in what sense might he not have died, for you may presume that Jesus was not suggesting that Adam might have lived one 3D life without an end.

Maybe the Adam lacked a permanent on-3D existence because he did not crystallize but diffused among us all.

That’s closer. Keep going.

We all have two aspects – our personal lives and our lives as they interact with everyone around us. If we look at our personal lives as if the world were divided into “me” and “not-me,” that 3D and non-3D soul might attain eternal (or relatively eternal, who knows?) life through the process of becoming fixed; having one “I” acquire dominion over all the other “I”s that Gurdjieff describes as contending within.

But if we look at our souls as communities that do not and can not and never could exist in isolation (for there is no such possibility, any more than for us to live breathing only our own air), then there is no fixed soul to achieve in any meaningful way that does not involve us all. And perhaps that was Adam’s role and fate and even, perhaps, Adam’s choice.

Bearing in mind that some of this is speculation (good, worthwhile speculation, but speculations nonetheless), this is a good understanding.

 

Saying 86

Jesus said: Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the son of man has no place to lay down his head and rest.

 Everybody has heard the saying, and presumably everybody thinks they know what it means. But I don’t think Jesus was complaining about being homeless. I think he was saying, This is not my place of rest, and it won’t be yours. I’d be interested in your take on “the son of man.” I have sometimes thought it meant “the descendant of humans,” the next step, so to speak. But I have no real idea.

Not quite The Son of God, is it?

That’s my point. From everything Jesus said, I get that he was emphasizing his kinship to us, not his essential difference. If he was essentially different, what lesson could his life be for anyone? But if he was our elder brother, so to speak, the one who had gotten farther along on the path of experience, his life would have everything to do with ours.

Yes, as encouragement, as a way to life more abundant. But what of Ouspensky’s argument that the life of Jesus was one long demonstration and teaching of the life of initiates, the few for whom the esoteric path is possible?

Jesus never said only a few can do it; he said only a few would do it, which I take to mean would want to, would be willing to pay the price. But I don’t know, of course.

Ouspensky was not wrong in differentiating between the idea that everybody would evolve – the common idea of a somewhat mechanical evolution – and the idea that only a few at any one time are ready and willing. But to stick to one point. Yes, Jesus was always saying 1) I am a man too, and 2) what I am you can become, only 3) the way to become what I am is strait and narrow – “strait” as in, a tight passage; “narrow” as in one with very little leeway.

So what about the comparison between his journey and the lives of animals?

Think of it as the difference between the natural order of things, ruled by territory and instinct and commonly understood behavior and rules of behavior (instinct, again), and a life lived consciously. To live awake is to live without the constraints of an ordered, bounded, existence. This has its particular features, some of which are convenient and some not. One thing such a life has is relatively unbounded possibilities. But another is relatively unbounded comforting limitations.

I think I garbled that. You mean, I think, lack of restriction is also lack of the kind of comfort that comes when you don’t have to do the work of choosing.

More or less. The burden of greater consciousness is not for everybody. For some the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages. That’s one reason why relatively few at a time are ever both willing and able.

Yes, and I get the sense that you, and I, differ from Ouspensky in that he seems to think that few people will ever be able to move on, as opposed to few at any given moment, whether that moment is a year or a lifetime.

Perhaps he was speaking for a different audience at a different time. In your day things move so rapidly as to erase the past before the ink has dried. It makes it hard to retain perspective even for those who are paying attention.

I’ve noticed.

You’ve noticed sometimes. Saying 87, then.

 

Saying 87

Jesus said: Wretched is a body depending on a body, and wretched is a soul depending on these two.

On a guess, I’d say this means, if you think the 3D world is all there is, God help you, and if your 3D/non-3D point of view still thinks the 3D is all there is, even worse.

Look more carefully, and slower.

Okay. I suppose it might mean, if you are dependent upon someone or something else, it isn’t a good situation, and if you are a soul dependent upon a 3D mind that is dependent upon someone or something else, same thing.

Bear in mind the previous saying.

Well, it seems to go along with it. If you can’t live on your own – if you have to have the support of society, family, all the attachments that life commonly brings – you won’t be able to be your true self, which is the only self that can attain what he calls the kingdom of heaven. That doesn’t mean you can’t have them, but that you can not be dependent upon them in a certain way; can not prefer them to your own inner requirements.

Close enough, but this one will repay further thought by different individuals who come to it, because each will have a slightly different slant, a slightly different need, that will inform it.

And that’s enough for this morning, I take it. The next saying is opaque to me, which usually means it requires a fresh start. So we’ll see you next time, unless you have anything to add here.

No, be well and remember that you can have life more abundant and it is not a matter of waiting until death sets you free, for after death you will still be you, only in different terrain, as we have said more than once.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.