Thomas, Saying 11 a through d

Sunday, May 19, 2019

3:45 a.m. The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 11a:

Jesus said: This sky will cease to be, and the sky above it will cease to be.

Looking at this in light of Saying 10, about Jesus throwing fire upon the world, doesn’t seem much clearer, nor in context of his overall mission to show us the proper evaluation of 3D life. So what can it mean? This is one of four sayings coupled in the mind of the compiler as a, b, c, d. My friends, what can you tell us?

You might list the other three as well, and consider them together, even if it requires more than one session.

All right.

11b. The dead do not live, and the living will not die.

11c. When you ate dead things, you made them alive. When you arrive into light, what will you do?

11d when you were one, you became two. When you become two, what will you do?

We have arrived at some difficult ones. I still can’t see that it is any clearer.

Three of the four deal with the future.

All four, actually.

11b arguably is more a statement of what is, but we can see it could be looked at as what will be; it is a matter of which end to emphasize.

So then, what can we make of all this? The first leaves me entirely puzzled. The sky above the sky. What can that mean? Here I’d give a lot to be able to have a discussion such as must have taken place among the disciples and Jesus, or the disciples and their disciples, explaining what is contained in these reminders.

And what do you think this is, if not just such a discussion?

Do you, then, include among you ex-people (so to speak) with that experience, so that access to you is access to the former inner circle?

The message and the resultant understanding will have to be its own bona fides.

I see that. Is it worth calling in Bertram? Or, no, let’s continue on the basis that we are dealing with people who were able so far to explain, so why should they be less so now?

Remember, the importance of 3D life, and its place in the greater life beyond it. That is the aim of the teaching, always.

Well, and how to grow toward what we truly are.

That is more a specific aspect than a difference.

In any case –

“The sky will cease to be” you would readily interpret as “the world will come to an end,” but that would be a mistake. To prevent that mistake, “the sky above it will cease to be” is added. And of course this was explained at length – and sparks were conveyed – that is invisible when any of the gospels are considered as literary, isolated, products.

Okay, as you wrote that – I wrote that – I got, relative to ourselves. That is, when we die to 3D, the 3D sky dies to us (or us to it; it works either way). So when we die to the non-3D, it too dies to us, in the same way. This seems to talk of us cycling back and forth between 3D and non-3D. But – is that a stretch?

Continue considering the other statements grouped as part of one statement, and see if it clarifies.

Well, 11b seems to make a firm and unalterable distinction (such as you are always telling us do not exist as absolutes) between living and dead things. It seems to say, there are living things and there are dead things, and never the twain shall meet.

Once again, remembering the intent of Jesus’ entire teaching mission.

Unless this uses “dead” and “living” in a way different from the accustomed meaning of the word, I don’t know.

Remember more widely. Let the dead bury their dead, etc.

Even so, it implies a stark division and an unending one.

Not quite. Yes, “the living will not die” is a description and a promise, but “the dead do not live” is not quite parallel. It does not quite say they will not live. It is closer to saying, once you attain “livingness,” there’s no going back, not that you would want to. In this context, 11c could be read as a rhetorical question, “Where do we go from here?” That is, having attained life, what happens to you next? And 11d similarly.

I don’t know about that last. What does “when you become two” have to do with “when you were one, you became two”?

Put it all into context. Together, you see, they show connections and an overall meaning that they could not show separately.

I can put it together, but I’m not sure it is any more than putting logic into place to make it seem other than a puzzle. I mean, logic has its place, I just don’t want to overdo it.

Try.

Very well. A) We alternate between leaving 3D and leaving non-3D. B) There is a real difference, some threshold, which once surmounted is a permanent gain. C) In living in 3D, absorbing the “external” and using it to grow, you had powerful assistance. When you leave 3D and no longer have an “external” world to push against, so to speak, your condition will be different. And D), in entering 3D, you in effect divided into the continued non-3D awareness and a new 3D-based awareness. But I can’t make anything of the future tense in the latter part of the statement.

Is this me cramming things into a box, or is it closer to the inner meaning of the four-part statement?

What do you think? Does it resonate?

It seems to make sense, only I get that this is a provisional understanding, a scaffolding not exactly right in itself, but one that will let us continue forward. More so even than usual, I mean.

Nothing wrong, and a good deal right, with proceeding that way. You never get to the ultimate bedrock meaning of anything; there is always more light to dawn, only you must remain open to more, if this is to happen. Which, by the way, is the ongoing meaning, call it, of 11d. You will become two again. If though you have previously come alive, you will not die, so in again becoming two, you will not be repeating the sorry scheme of things; you will be entering a new world of possibilities.

That’s interesting. Having attained life – does that equate with having become crystallized? – we are not through with earth after we die, but we experience future 3D lives very differently.

If you chose to continue to undertake them, yes.

Huh. Well, I feel like I had to work for this one, but we did get to at least a plausible, defensible, understanding.

Your goal is severely practical, is it not? This is a result of a determination to arrive at a practical result.

At some point, I can see, too theoretical an explanation might lose utility for us here.

What is too theoretical (though we think you really mean, too sophisticated, taking into consideration factors hard to understand and assimilate) will become appropriate after you pass another stage of growth. What you do not understand one day, you may the next. It is a process, not an end-product.

And there is your hour.

Thanks very much, and we will see you next time.