Tuesday. May 14, 2019
4:25 a.m. I see there are 114 sayings in all, so if we do one a day, it will take us all summer. A long time. But, we’ll see. Saying 4a and 4b:
Jesus said: The old man will not hesitate to ask a seven-day-old baby about the place of life, and he will live.
For there are many who are first who will become last. They will become a single one.
Can’t say I’m very clear on this one. We have all heard “the last shall become first,” so the shock of initial discovery is gone, but it is in a different context, not about them becoming the same. So, any light you can shed on this one will be appreciated.
Again, remember your touchstone. Jesus is describing reality; he is saying, here is the way in which 3D life is central to you, and the way it is not. So does that clarify the saying? And if not, looking at it as a logical successor to the first [sayings], does that clarify it?
Assuming logical sequence, it seems it must have to do with our greater extent that we may come to know.
Focus. That isn’t stated at all clearly.
No, it isn’t. [Pause] Well then, let’s say it this way. It looks like the previous saying shows us that we are greater, extend farther, than we may suspect, and that only if we come to realize it will we overcome what otherwise is a poverty of resources, a poverty of life.
Better. Now, in writing that sentence, you are thinking, of course poverty means internal lack, not external lack of resources. So, to prod your thinking, we will ask, How could that be? If internal and external worlds are the same things experienced differently, how could internal poverty be good and external be bad, or vice versa?
Because they are not the same things, any more than humility is the same as humiliation even if the words are similar.
Not bad. There is the germ of truth in what you just said. It should prompt you to look at the synoptic gospels’ sayings to see if you have rightly interpreted them in that regard, or rather, whether it would clarify anything, considering them in the opposite sense of what you have assumed they meant.
So, pending such reconsideration, let us look at this saying.
The first seems to have something to do with reincarnation, only I don’t really see it. Who would the seven-day-old baby be? If the saying meant, “late in life one will consult parts of himself that lived previously,” it would not refer to his other life as a baby. So, since I don’t have it, kindly open this saying up to us.
[I reread them.]
Do you get it now?
Well, maybe. As I reread, I thought, maybe I’m overcomplicating it. Maybe it is simply that many a person old in the 3D world will seek wisdom from someone newer into the world, whose wisdom cannot have come from the 3D world it has yet to experience, and will find what will allow them to live.
Consider, though, in context, what does it mean, “to live”? What does it mean, “the place of life”?
Hmm. As I was reading it, I took “the place of” to mean “the importance of,” or “the context of,” not “the location of.”
And in this you were right. The saying does not refer to a physical Fountain of Youth. Then, what does it mean, the old man, having consulting the baby, will live?
Could it be that he is consulting something newly born within himself? Some newborn awareness?
These sayings repay thought and care, but they cannot be “figured out”; any logical deduction may be of assistance, but equally it may mislead. Discernment is particularly important in this exploration.
As I was writing that, my inner state changed and I became aware of it. I remembered, so to speak, that it is five a.m. and my mind is clearer of the things of the day.
And does that changed state bring new clarity?
I can’t say that it does. What it does chiefly is remind me that I as 3D mind am not neutral observer but participant, and my inner state is apt to (perhaps must) color things.
Re-read yet again.
If this is read as relating to the external, it reads one way; if to the internal, another way. Since neither way makes entire sense by itself, maybe we should read it as applying to both.
Yes, good, provided that in so doing, you remember that this is not necessarily how it was received. That is, the 3D/non-3D context that has become natural to you, they might have experienced as physical/spiritual, which is much less suggestive of inherent continuity.
The implications of which are –?
You are in a position they were not in. Jesus, as initiate and as one in entire connection to his non-3D self, was living a reality not yet obvious to them. You in your generation live at the end of two millennia of digestion of the message of Jesus, some of which got through. So one could say you are in a privileged position of being initiates of a sort, even before you begin studying the matter. But where the generation Jesus lived among were faced with the puzzle of unraveling something new, your generation is faced with the task of first hacking through its anti-religious prejudices and/or its reflexive belief that it already knows what the new teaching actually says and promises.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. Only, I get that although I am aware of it conceptually, I am not necessarily aware of any specific manifestation of it.
No, but that realization will itself serve you well.
What we would underline is that these sayings, which were hidden, interior sayings reserved for the inner circle of those most alive to them, were nonetheless enigmas to them until explained. To come to awareness is not to suddenly know everything; it is to become able to use one’s consciousness to address life.
You are being a bit cryptic yourself, this morning.
Words as sparks, not as signposts. At some point in a discussion, logical construction fails you, and only your inner knowing – which may be sparked – can carry you forward.
I get a sense that you don’t really know what this saying means.
No, it is you that doesn’t know, so listen:
Internally: Experience is no guarantee of wisdom, but experience may prompt you to listen to wisdom when you hear it. If you are wise enough to listen, then you know, and in so doing, you know what the other knew, and the difference between you disappears, or is overcome, whichever way you care to look at it.
Externally: Your external life may teach you at any moment, if you remain open to it, and do not overrule what “is” by what you think “should be.” That is, you use your wisdom correctly, to discern rather than to arrogate or proclaim. Sometimes, to learn, you need to come to life internal or external with a beginner’s mind, starting with an acknowledgement of your own poverty of understanding, so that what you do have, what you do know, what you have experienced and constructed, do not stand in your way but aid in the new process of understanding.
So, retain beginner’s mind if we wish to learn.
If you wish to live! That is, to close yourself off to new understanding would be (is) the same as closing yourself off to new experience. It is to refuse life. Refusing life, how can you be said to live?
I see. Reading Davies’ note on saying 4, his seems scholarly and plausible, but not helpful and not particularly relevant.
Judge not, et cetera.
Point taken. All right, thanks as always.
Note that the quote from Blake was originally attributed to Wordsworth, through some inadvertence that I do not understand. Given that the guys presumably lifted the quote from my mind, how could they, or I in recording, get it wrong? Nonetheless, take note. It is from Blake’s “Proverbs of Hell.”
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
4:40 a.m. Saying 5:
Jesus said: Recognize what is right in front of you, and that which is hidden from you will be revealed to you. Nothing hidden will fail to be displayed.
This one seems so obvious, there must be more to it than meets the eye – which in fact is just what it says, isn’t it?
Yes it is. When you really see, you see not only appearance but hidden aspects of what you see. Connect this with the previous saying now.
See with a beginner’s mind, and you will see beyond surface appearance.
Again, remember to approach these sayings from the idea that Jesus was teaching the centrality of 3D as problem/opportunity and the non-centrality of 3D as an end in and of itself; also, remember that the sayings as preserved were reminders of a larger oral teaching, rather than a complete catechism or textbook, and, as we said, much will become clear.
So we may proceed to the next.
So quickly? Okay.
His disciples questioned him: Should we fast? In what way should we pray? Should we give to charity? From which foods should we abstain? Jesus responded: Do not lie. If there is something that you hate, do not do it, for everything is revealed beneath heaven. Nothing hidden will fail to be displayed. Nothing covered will remain undisclosed.
This one also seems obvious, and I have to restrain myself from looking at the commentary to see if what I see is what Davies saw. To me it is classic outer v. inner. The disciples are saying what should we do or not do. Jesus is saying here is what you want to be. Action v. essence.
That’s not wrong, but needs spelling out, a bit. “Being” is revealed, but is also shaped, by “doing.” This is mostly a matter of understanding. The same action, done with different intent or out of different response to provocation, is not the same seen in essence as it is when see in appearance.
I tell people, Jesus taught integrity above all things. That which you are, express, and if you don’t want to express it, change so you are not it.
Interesting, as what came out just now is not what I have said, but something more sophisticated. I said only, Jesus said don’t pretend; be what you are. But I see this is a deeper insight.
Again (and again and again) remember to look at this as a record of reminders of how Jesus had transformed their understanding of life and of themselves. From this simple teaching, many a discussion will have been necessary, to clarify the point and clear away the misunderstandings people will have brought to it.
Rituals, rites, practices, specific habits may (may) help remind one of the goal; they will not, cannot, in and of themselves bring anyone anywhere. So when the disciples asked if they should do this or that, his answer would have been aimed at having them understand that. To have answered, “You should” do x and such will be misleading and worse if it is taken to mean, “this action in itself will produce results”; it may be helpful if understood to mean, “this action may assist you to be such a way as may eventually produce results.” In other words, an action performed as if it in itself will produce merit or will produce a desired change within oneself, is in nature superstitious. The same action, performed as discipline or as mindful habit, may help keep you on track which in turn may lead to the desired change or the desired maintenance of a given course.
Clear to me. Abstaining from eating meat on Friday is in itself meaningless or superstitious, but the same action, if performed as a sign (for others and for oneself) of solidarity with the church, and as a reminder and token of willing sacrifice for one’s chosen goal, may be useful and even meritorious. I do see the distinction. It shades off, however, if we think of the act as expressing obedience or disobedience to a church organization. What of that?
Being a member of a church can not, in and of itself, save anybody from anything. It can not, in and of itself, be a good thing or a bad thing. Does belonging to a woodworking guild make you a good (or even a better) woodworker? It may demonstrate perceived competence, and may demonstrate one’s self-identification with the larger worldview of the woodworkers. It may be a visible expression of one’s aspirations to attain greater skill as a woodworker, and to live in such a way as to be justly proud of one’s accomplishments and dedication to the goal. But membership in and of itself says nothing about one’s true essence, only the appearance one wishes to present. This especially if one may be born into woodworking, may buy one’s way in with money or other coin of exchange rather than with skill or intent or talent. You see; no need to spell it out.
Yes. Churches are human institutions, useful as such institutions may be, and subject to corruption or degeneration as such may be.
They may have social utility; they may be stabilizers in many senses of the word. They are not and cannot in and of themselves be anything in respect to the individual’s journey though 3D life.
External organizations, like external actions, are more like significators than determiners. (And who wrote that? Not me, I think.)
However, do not neglect the rest of the saying, which is put in direct response to questions that otherwise might be seen as unrelated. They asked, “What actions should we perform?” He responded, “Be what you are, for there is ultimately no concealment.” People don’t look at that carefully enough. Look at what it does not say. It does not say, “Do this and that, refrain from doing this and that other.” It does not say, “This or that category of things is or is not required or forbidden.” Look carefully at that sentence: “Don’t do what you hate doing.” What does that mean, in context. If you hate giving to charity or you hate listening to the teachings of Jesus, or if you hate, say, “Love your neighbor” specifically, does this mean, “Follow your feelings”?
I’d say that’s exactly what it means. How else can the words be interpreted?
Would that not be interpretable as, “If you wish to do evil, do it”?
Logically, that is exactly what it sounds like. But I’m expecting you to show me that it does not.
Okay, but it does, in a way.
“In a way.”
Of course in a way. Jesus is attempting to show people the reality of their lives in 3D. Would you expect him therefore to say, “But do what you want, because the guidelines I’m giving you don’t mean anything”? No, the admonition to not do what you hate is one of the admonitions. It says be what you are, express what you really are, because if you do not, you will be one thing on the inside and another on the outside, and this cannot stand. [“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” it occurs to me, typing this.]
So if I have murderous impulses, I should give in to them for the sake of internal consistency?
No, you should listen to Blake saying, “Sooner strangle an infant in a cradle than nurse unacted desires.” Not have unacted desires, or that is not within one’s power to determine, but do not at the same time nurse them and deny them.
So if you hate something, don’t do it, either by not doing it or by changing your attitude toward it so you don’t hate it?
Bear in mind, these teachings are not sociology, nor –. Well, put it this way: One may be forced to do things one hates; that is not the same as doing the same things for reasons of expediency. It is, as always, a matter of one’s will, one’s intent, rather than the way they may express, for actions, like situations, may be misleading to the observer, even when the observer is oneself.
I’m always interested to write sentences I don’t understand as I’m writing them.
Part of the process, and a good part. Enough for now.
You guys are like tenured professors. The hour is up, and you close up shop with a neat flourish. Thanks as always.
Thomas, Saying number seven:
Jesus said: Blessed is a lion that a man eats, because that lion will become human. Cursed is a man that a lion eats, because that lion will become human.
This one for the first time tempts me to look at the commentary for a clue as to meaning, but I resist, for the reason given before, that it would merely cripple access and encourage guessing, which is death to intuition.
[After receiving all this, and prior to beginning to type, I did look at the commentary for saying seven, and was glad I had refrained from reading it beforehand. Really, I think it misconceives the whole subject. At any rate we come to very different conclusions!]
But if there was ever a need for coffee, it’s here. Fortunately, it is on the way.
What will you do in the non-3D when there is no coffee?
I won’t be trying to contact someone in 3D, to learn something. Presumably. At any rate –
Remember to connect a given saying with one or more previous sayings.
Yes. And I don’t know if it is because I am browsing yesterday’s entry, or merely while I am doing so, it occurs to me that the saying is about process (Maybe.)
No, you are on the right track. Express your insight.
If the man eats the lion or the lion eats the man, either way the lion becomes human. But the consequences for the man are very different. I am supposing that the lion is meant to indicate our animal nature – and the man, the higher possibilities, but as I try to phrase that, it breaks down.
So let us look at it. You could guess that the lion is the 3D self, but in that case, is the man the non-3D self? How could that be? How could the non-3D self be absorbed by the 3D self? Does that make sense?
As so often, I can feel things clarifying even as I write out your response, or sometimes mine. But it isn’t quite there yet.
What would your life be if
Oh! Of course. Okay, I get it. it’s a matter of remembering (as you have told us) to keep in mind what Jesus was about. He was providing insight into the nature of life and the way things are. He was not giving abstract disquisitions; it was meant to be practical.
That’s correct. So it isn’t a matter of the non-3D being overcome by the 3D, but of the non-3D being effectively choked out of 3D life from the point of view of the 3D life you are leading.
Obvious once said.
So, from the point of view of a 3D consciousness attempting to come to greater clarity, greater self-possession, greater consciousness, it is all-important which way the lion becomes human. If a 3D-centered consciousness identifies with its animal nature, any advance in identification with larger aspects of itself may result only in grand
(Started to write grandification, which of course is not a word. Aggrandizement?)
Aggrandizement, yes, of the disconnected, animal, 3D-centered being.
Nietzsche in his madness, rather than, say, Jung in his wholeness.
That is a very good pair of comparisons, and of course not the first time we have paired them in your mind.
It is very interesting in this new context. I have looked at Nietzsche as an example of psychic inflation followed by inevitable collapse.
Let us provide suggestive additional examples. Hitler. The sorcerer’s apprentice. Many a televangelist.
I see. What they have in common is insufficiently prepared contact with larger powers, which swallowed them up.
We know it is difficult to do, yet it is important that you all concentrate on remembering wider lessons.
I couldn’t phrase it, but I know that you meant, don’t forget to integrate things we have learned at other time, in learning new things or new ways of seeing.
Specifically, you were instructed at some length to remember or realize for the first time that your lives are not only your own affair, but are the conduits for vast impersonal forces. Those forces will provide you with great power and authority if you are in proper relation to them – and they will take you over and destroy you as an individual if you are not.
Either way, the division between 3D and non-3D has been broken down, or at least greatly thinned, but one way is destructive to us.
This is why Jesus was so insistent on proper internal conduct. No, that isn’t a mis-phrasing; we wish to introduce a new way of comparison, similar to saying 3D and non-3D instead of, say, physical and spiritual. We are knitting together what is easily sundered.
Internal conduct, external conduct will in some ways, for some purposes, lead to greater clarity than trying to say “being v. doing,” for example.
Yes, I see it.
Well, Jesus was continually emphasizing how intent was critical. The same action, the same thought, even the same priorities, in a way, could be very different, and lead to very different results, depending upon context. Depending, in other words, upon how, more so than upon what.
We could pray correctly and have a positive result in terms of increasing our access for positive reasons, or could pray incorrectly and obtain a negative result.
You have the right idea, but have not yet expressed the right idea. Expand your exposition.
Hitler, say, may very well have had an altruistic intent, channeled through personal (inadequate) intentions. He wanted to right political and social wrongs; wanted to overcome forces that he thought were destructive to society; wanted to fight both communism and rule by money (which he identified with Judaism, having absorbed the anti-Semitism of his native Austria). These were altruistic goals in that they were transpersonal. They were personal in that he intended to rule, and in a sense was using the forces he knew how to raise [in others]. But, as Jung said, it was closer to say that Hitler was Germany than to say he ruled it. He did not have that separation. Like Nietzsche but in a different direction, he had evoked forces he did not know how to control, although he thought he did. Vast impersonal forces of hatred, rejection, revenge, self-aggrandizement, a will to power—all of it that we have become so familiar with – it took him over and left him mad. Mad and vastly influential, because his madness evoked and met response in a German people that had been traumatized by a combination of guilt, misfortune and injustice, all of these forces channeled by unscrupulous men for their own petty uses, which channeling was itself being used to express forces they had little idea of and no control over.
Only, don’t let yourself assume that Jesus was concerned with collective or political ends. These are and were abstractions. They affect lives, but they have no ability to assist anybody to come into proper relation with his own (or her own, of course; it is the same thing) truer relation to the world, that is, to reality.
Do not let the lion eat the man, regardless of your outrage or sympathy or concern. Learn to somewhat distrust even your altruism. Perhaps we should say, especially your altruism, for it is often a fleeing from the proper real and necessary, in order to march off to a pretended siege of Babylon, as Emerson put it.
But if the man eat the lion –
Then with luck you get a Carl Jung, able to help the world. But more commonly you get individuals unknown to the world, but holding it together as a side-effect of their own greater integration. While you are working on yourselves, it is as well to remember to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but to God the things that are God’s.
Thanks for this, as for all of it.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Okay, now, to the task I have put off for a couple of days.
Rita’s daughter Laurie was scheduled to take a trip to India, awoke one morning with a huge headache, wondered if that was a sign that she shouldn’t go. Wondered if it was a warning. So she asked Rita if I’d try for an impression from somebody. Rita told her it isn’t the kind of thing I do but that she would ask. I hesitated, said I’d try, though only because I knew that whenever I came up with, Laurie could be relied upon to not treat it as gospel: in other words, I wouldn’t have the responsibility of personal infallibility that I could never meet. But for a couple of days I either forgot or felt I wasn’t ready, and in the meanwhile Laurie decided to go, regardless.
So, gentlemen, is there something about the period around July 4th that –. No, a better question is, tell me whatever would be helpful to us to understand what is going on.
You haven’t connected this request and your reaction to it to the e-mail correspondence about Edgar Cayce that you have been having with your fundamentalist friend – that began only after Laurie’s request.
True, but I saw no reason to. They didn’t seem connected.
They are connected in time, aren’t they? That is always a clue, or at least let’s say it is always something to be looked at.
[Very disorienting. I started the coffeemaker before sitting down to do this. It takes six minutes to brew, and has a little digital display in red giving elapsed time. It would function as a clock if I left plugged it in. I look up from writing the previous paragraph and the display says 1:16 and it is quarter after eight. How can that be?? I see I claimed that it was 8 a.m. as I sat down to write but what happened to the hour between seven and eight? I didn’t read, or shower or shave, or walk outside. I didn’t turn on the computer. If not for the clock/timer I’d have said I was mistaken and got up at 8 instead of 7. What just happened here?]
To continue –?
The connection between Laurie’s request, your reluctance to bear the responsibility and your reluctance to disappoint, and the slanders on Cayce that anger you is not the main point here, just something you should be aware of. Also, the fact that the Archie Roy manuscript on The Eager Dead arrives – after delays – only just now, as well.
Okay. I noticed that one of the quotes he heads up the chapter with reminds us that spirits lie.
Sometimes, not always – as when in bodies. So – as you have told people how many times? – test the spirits.
Okay. So —
You too have felt an occasional twinge of uneasiness about the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. You have felt a wonderment, too – will you be allowed to fly to England in mid month? Will you be able to return? These are not your customary questions of “How will I ever fill my time,” but are different, more like your “Maybe something catastrophic is about to happen.”
I feel you dancing around the subject of what will or may happen, as if I didn’t already know that which future we experience depends on which one we choose (at some level) and that therefore prediction is usually as unsafe as it looks.
Well, you know it on some levels of your being, but not all. In everyday life you do tend to look at things – as is nearly inevitable, given that you are in a body in a time/space-slice – as being in one timeline rather than as being in all, with only one seeming real.
Okay let’s get to the question that perhaps I should have asked first. What is the significance to Laurie of the premonition and then the decision to override the premonition?
That’s a better question. Here’s a better answer, accordingly.
Laurie has been living, and making her living, as a psychic, all these years. She must recognize the reality of things that others doubt or disbelieve or even believe not knowing. Her life has given her no choice in the matter. Not that she wanted choice necessarily, regardless the occasional discomforts of the path, but still, there it is. She had and has essentially no choice but to be what she is or (still being what she is) turn her back on her path and try to live some other kind of life.
Well and good – but her path is nearly at an end, as yours, as so many others – and we don’t mean death or futility, but an end to the well-known, the well- or badly-explored. From here it all changes, and there isn’t much use in worrying about retirement plans or making long-range plans of any sort. Now it is dancing on breaking ice (if you will permit us to somewhat extravagant analogy) which may be done well or badly, gladly or grudgingly, but in any case will be qualitatively different from trudging down an endless path that is stable even if uninspiring.
In such a new way of being, you will function by radically awakened awareness – and this implies automatic and unceasing discernment that must not be allowed to degenerate or slip into Psychic’s Disease.
That may not sound like such an important message to you. It may not sound particularly new, even. Pay attention nonetheless.
Say some more about it, then? And speaking of things being connected in meaning if connected in time, what happened to that hour this morning?
Your life contains many things, not all of them to be mentioned. Your throwing pots with new skill and confidence is part of this as are fantasies and reading and watching movies about time travel – have you noticed that both The Invisible Man and Thrill Seekers are about time travel? Invisible Man isn’t, yet it associates to The Time Machine. But never mind for now. All the parts of your life are interwoven as a tapestry. Your daughter comes to visit, you visit your sisters, etc. etc. – it is all connected by invisible threads, the original sense of the analogy we initiated years ago that you sort of specialized into one of soul heredity.
You are wandering wildly today. David, talk to me please. What is all this.
That was a wise decision, and you can see perhaps the value of making the acquaintance of individuals on this side. You could have asked for Bertram or either of the Josephs, and in each case you’d get a more definite, more stable personality to filter the information through.
I think I begin to see. The Victorians not having what they call a “control” were trying to put chaos into a bag. Having a “control,” they were limited in their belief that it had to work through only that personality.
Very good. Close enough. All right then, your questions.
Where did the hour ago? It cannot be fitted into your life except by violence. So now you have an experience that until now you have only read about – missing time. Let it remain a mystery: It is serving its purpose. Notice how nicely it was set up to befuddled you. If you hadn’t made coffee you would suspect or assume that you had awakened at seven (as you did) but had gone back to sleep (as you did not). But the fact that you started the coffee and then sat down to write and realized that the coffee timer said 1:15 when it should have said 12:15 startled you and made you look backwards. Now, let’s leave that.
To return to the question of Laurie’s experience and your part in it –
As was said, your path ends. You are to the trailblazing part of your career. All that is past was to bring you to this point as you now find yourselves – with the experiences and skills you have absorbed. So you needn’t believe or accept authority when it contradicts what you know – for in unknown territory there is no authority. Or, to put that better, no guide is authoritative about unexplored territory. His authority rests in what he has learned, what skills he has developed. On such things he may be relied upon, though not blindly for not all old knowledge may apply. But while he may have skills and knowledge, it is his instinct that will be most valuable. To put it in terms you use, his left-brain learning will inform his right-brain pattern recognition – especially valuable when all the patterns are new.
I think I need to stop and put this on to the computer. It has been a little more than an hour, by the evidence of the number of pages and of the 8 a.m. I marked down at the beginning. I couldn’t have been two hours doing this. (So what did I do for that other hour??)
A little mystery is good for you. Spend more time now connecting the seemingly disconnected but temporally connected events in your life.
Okay. Thanks, David. This was another new door, wasn’t it?
That depends on your stepping through it or not. As your brother said, the old bugaboo about “real work.”
Thomas sayings 8 and 9
Friday, May 17, 2019
3:50 a.m. Saying # 8:
And he said: The man is like a thoughtful fisherman who threw his net into the sea and pulled it out full of little fish. Among all the little fish, the thoughtful fisherman found one fine large fish that would be beneficial to him and, throwing all the little fish back into the sea, he easily chose to keep the large one. Whoever has ears to hear let him hear.
Looking at the immediate context, we see yesterday’s, which you said is about our intent, what you called our internal conduct. And “thoughtful” here seems to me to be the same as mindful. The fisherman knew what he was about. He used his judgment. The rest reminds us of the pearl of great price. Is it that simple? I doubt it, or it would not be included among esoterica.
But remember, this was all esoterica, and it was all common knowledge among the earlier members of what became the Christian community, because remember it was part of an oral tradition. As we pointed out earlier, the gospels were written down more as chapter heads than as texts, more as reminders and prompts than as in themselves sufficient for understanding. In that sense, the difference between the gospel of Thomas and that of the synoptic gospels and of John, and of Acts, is that they were narrative in form and Thomas is not. It is the difference between narrative and non-narrative.
I have thought that Thomas was excluded from the canon of texts not because it was too secret but because it was inexplicable: Those who had lost the inner sense of it couldn’t make out what it was about, and so thought, Why confuse the dumb masses? Self-styled leaders are always doing that, it seems to me. But does this mean that there is nothing particularly new to us in this saying?
State what comes to you as you ask this, and we will comment.
Well, “thoughtful fisherman.” Maybe it isn’t quite mindful so much as prudent, careful, observant. If we were looking at the fish as thoughts, or insights, or even values, we might say he had cast his net for them – and how often have you advised me, “cast your net widely” – and in valuing what he has caught in his net, he chooses to keep the one great fish and let the others go. At first I thought, Well, no need to throw back all the others, why does keeping the one fish preclude keeping the others? But then I thought, maybe it’s a matter of focus, of holding to the one so that one doesn’t fritter away one’s attention on a million little things..
Yes. If one cannot keep everything, keep the one that in itself is greatest, so that one may stand in for many.
You may pass on to saying #9.
Jesus said: Look, there was a man who came out to sow seed. He filled his hand with seed and threw it about. Some fell onto the road, and birds ate it. some fell onto rocks, and could not root and produced no grain. Some fell into patches of thorny weeds that kept it from growing, and grubs ate it. Some seed fell upon good soil and grew and produced good grain. It was 60 units per measure and 120 units per measure.
I haven’t looked at the commentary this time, but I pretty well remember Davies saying this was about incompetent farming technique! However, I may be doing him an injustice. I’ll look when we have finished here. This one, like the previous one, seems familiar from the synoptic gospels.
Only, look carefully. Yes, on one level the meaning has been explained to one and all over the centuries, as it was not explained to one and all while Jesus was alive. But is today’s common understanding all there is to see?
Our understanding of it is that different souls react differently to the word.
And that is not untrue, only look at it now, not from result but from the sower’s point of view, and, indeed, from what you might call the point of view of the process.
Interesting thought. Agricultural analogies aside, it seems to say that one must throw out the seed almost regardless of personal receptivity.
Well, Jesus was not advocating casting pearls before swine – insisting on trying to convince those who are determined not to be convinced, or are unable to grasp the argument – but is saying, in effect, you never know.
That’s a very interesting take on it, and although it’s obviously the way life is, I hadn’t ever thought of it that way. You cast your seeds into the surroundings not knowing who will be able to profit, because you can’t necessarily know their inmost heart, nor how they may change in the future.
Nor, indeed, who may stumble upon your words centuries later. Certainly this was the experience not only of Jesus, as of Buddha and other great teachers, but of their disciples. And if it was true of them, why shouldn’t it be true of their successors?
So, other than not trying to insist (which isn’t said here but is said elsewhere), we should –
Oh. It occurs to me, this is the complement to the previous saying, isn’t it? One is about receiving; the other is about giving.
Yes, very good. And, remembering the theme of the proper relationship of one’s 3D life to the greater life?
Under 3D conditions, we mostly don’t know. We are constrained by time, by space, by limits to our ability to hold in mind more than a certain amount at a time. So, we’re shooting in the dark. Under these conditions, we should choose carefully our input, and recognize that there are severe limits to our foreknowledge of the results of our activity.
Correct. And, in light of 3D limitations, the connection to your deeper selves becomes more important, becomes a means of liberation, of blossoming.
“I have come that you may have life more abundantly,” something like that.
Exactly. It isn’t that the messages are inherently different, but that they make sense only from the proper standpoint, the proper viewpoint. If you happen to be ready for them, you in effect produce a 60-fold or 120-fold increase. That is, [someone] opening your eyes is productive. If you are choked with the concerns of the world, you may be entirely closed to the truth even if you have inherent ability to respond to it. if you are barren of possibilities for whatever reason, hardness of heart of inability to open access, nothing can come of sowing the seed. But you, as sower, never know.
And being unable to know, is no excuse for saying, “It’s hopeless.”
Exactly, just as you can never know what you’re going to fish out of the sea, but must cast your net to find out. And this is enough for the moment.
All right, thanks as always. And, looking at the commentary, it is much as I remember it. Moral of the story being, I guess, you can’t see everything.
Say rather, that what you see will be limited by the mindset you bring to the seeing.
Till next time, then.