Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ

[AshvinP]

There are no spiritual "dictatorships" being referenced here. That is simply your opinion, which you of course are entitled to. Western spirituality is entirely based on the notion of the sovereign individual who must be guaranteed certain basic freedoms by virtue of being made in the image of God. That is not always reflected well by religious sects and political parties, but nevertheless it is a fact which is clear from Biblical scripture.

Don't see much sovereignty in Biblical scriptures (see below), but rather I see a spiritual dictate and lack of personal freedom. In a typical dictatorship everyone of course have freedom of choice, but the choices are limited to either complying with the dictator or being punished for not to be compliant. That is the most common theme in the Old Testament, but also present in the New one. Universal societal "telos" defined by a single authority is another hallmark of a dictatorship. Noone is allowed to follow any other larger-scale telos of a personal choice.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"
"Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me"
"But the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

I am getting a bit tired of addressing these completely irrelevant arguments instead of the specific claims made in the essay and elsewhere. That seems to be what you are most interested in here - sidetracking every discussion into something only you want to discuss, and, as you already acknowledged, is mostly a matter of your own personal experience and related biases. No mention of Barfield, Gebser, Steiner, Hegel, Coleridge, Teilhard de Chardin, or any of their writings or excerpts. Instead, I will respond to your comment pointing out that nations adopting Christianity are more politically free than any other nations in the world, you will respond by pointing out Catholic Church atrocities such as Inquisition etc. and flawed theology on "eternal punishment in Hell", and then we are off to the races on a completely irrelevant discussion that people will lose interest in quickly. So can we just save ourselves the trouble and move on to something that was actually mentioned in the essay?

[Eugene I]

Whether they mentioned that in the quotes of the essay or not, the same monotheistic model is still implied with its inherent universal telos and universal personal command. The fact they do not mention it simply means that they try to avoid discussing and admitting it, simply following "hiding under the carpet" strategy. Or perhaps they have a bling spot on it and just do not see it as an issue.

[Soul_of_Shu]

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"
"Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me"
"But the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Keeping in mind the culture that was being addressed at the time, and thus how such anachronistic terms like 'the Father' in current culture must be understood symbolically, I tend to translate this as "I am ~ i.e. the awakened state/not under the spell of duality ~ the way, the truth, the dispelling, etc, etc, absent which there is no way unto That which everyone is in essence" ... As such it could just as well be everyone's Buddha nature as Christ nature, which if denied and resisted is working against that realization process ... no?

[AshvinP]

Whether they mentioned that in the quotes of the essay or not, the same monotheistic model is still implied with its inherent universal telos and universal personal command. The fact they do not mention it simply means they try to avoid discussing and admitting it, simply following "hiding under the carpet" strategy. Or perhaps having a bling spot on it.

What is implied is that the personal spiritual teloses are specific forms of the universal telos, and the latter could even be described as exploring all personal teloses and bringing them into harmony with each other. Hegel captured it very nicely in this short quote:

The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and constitutes thereby the life of the whole.
- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit (1807)

What do you make of that?

[Eugene I]

Keeping in mind the culture that was being addressed at the time, and thus now such anachronistic terms like 'the Father' must be understood symbolically, I tend to translate this as "I am ~ i.e. the awakened state/not under the spell of duality ~ the way, the truth, the dispelling, etc, etc, absent which there is way unto That which one is in essence" ... As such it could just as well be Buddha nature as Christ nature, which if denied is working against that process ... no?

I'm very familiar with spiritual, symbolic and esoteric interpretations of the scriptures. But even if you stretch these interpretations to "awakened states" and what's not, there is still a leftover. IMO "That which is one in essence" has no intrinsic agenda and no expectations from us whatsoever, it has no likes or dislikes of its own, no rules to impose and restrict the flow of consciousness, and no universal telos imposed on us. "That" does not expect us and does not command us to be perfect ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") Yet, we still develop and evolve simply by virtue of natural motivations to avoid suffering and to reach for beauty, knowledge, freedom, love etc which we perceive as being more "perfect" than suffering and confusion. The "perfection" as a spiritual idea is an attraction force that creates dynamics in life, but that does not mean that it's a point of final destination or a universal telos. Even if we are motivated by perfection, there is innumerable number of different paths and ways to envision, express and manifest it. For example, Buddhists have quite different envision of perfection compared to Christians . And regardless of the particular envision of perfection, noone, including "That", compels us or expects us to do this, we are free to do it or not. But the further we diverge from perfection, the more we suffer naturally.

[Eugene I]

The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and constitutes thereby the life of the whole.
- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit (1807)

What do you make of that?

See my answer above to Dana

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'm very familiar with spiritual, symbolic and esoteric interpretations of the scriptures. But even if you stretch these interpretations to "awakened states" and what's not, there is still a leftover. IMO "That which is one in essence" has no intrinsic agenda and no expectations from us whatsoever, it has no likes or dislikes of its own, no rules to impose and restrict the flow of consciousness. "That" does not expect us and does not command us to be perfect ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") Yet, we still develop and evolve simply by virtue of natural motivations to avoid suffering and to reach for beauty, knowledge, freedom, love etc which we perceive as being more "perfect" than suffering and confusion. The "perfection" as a spiritual idea is an attraction force that creates dynamics in life, but that does not mean that it's a point of final destination or a universal telos. Even if we are motivated by perfection, there is innumerable number of different paths and ways to envision, express and manifest it. For example, Buddhists have quite different envision of perfection compared to Christians . And regardless of the particular envision of perfection, noone, including "That", compels us or expects us to do this, we are free to do it or not. But if we don't, we will indeed suffer just naturally.

This once again seems like some 'hammer-and-scythe' projection unto the Christ teaching, which was not about some condescending personal guru demanding submissive acquiescence to a 'Father', or His rules, that is somehow apart from everyone's very essence, but about the realization that 'I am', and by extension 'You are', the Christ nature/Buddha nature by way of which That which everyone is in essence is realized/actualized, as the 'Kingdom' in our very midst. The only 'rule' implied in this is 'know thyself' as in 'inquire within.'

[Eugene I]

The only 'rule' implied in this is 'know thyself' as in 'inquire within.'

Oh, if you stretch the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible that far, I would definitely subscribe to that. Also, since such "rule" is very common among most traditions, then under such approach the Christ is still definitely a messenger, but not any more special than any other one at the roots of other spiritual traditions. So, I'm not sure Christians and anthrosophists would also subscribe to that.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The only 'rule' implied in this is 'know thyself' as in 'inquire within.'

Oh, if you stretch the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible that far, I would definitely subscribe to that. But I'm not sure Christians and anthrosophists would also do.

Just saying that I don't see what Ashvin is offering in this essay as anything other than a re-evaluation, or re-framing to overcome the adulteration of the teaching as it was originally intended, just as you have offered the original Sutras as conceived by the Buddha in the same way. Once again, depending on whatever predispositions we may filter a given mythos through, one can certainly spin them in ways that render them far removed from the original context to suit and serve a political agenda, or, as the High Priests of Patriarchy did with the gospels that didn't suit their agenda, have them banned, burned or buried in the desert, along with their advocates. As for the pre-gospel Bible, I quite honestly haven't paid it much heed, and so must defer to the nuanced insights of those who have ~ like Jung's take on the story of Job ~ albeit I certainly don't resonate with all of them.

[AshvinP]

Keeping in mind the culture that was being addressed at the time, and thus now such anachronistic terms like 'the Father' must be understood symbolically, I tend to translate this as "I am ~ i.e. the awakened state/not under the spell of duality ~ the way, the truth, the dispelling, etc, etc, absent which there is way unto That which one is in essence" ... As such it could just as well be Buddha nature as Christ nature, which if denied is working against that process ... no?

I'm very familiar with spiritual, symbolic and esoteric interpretations of the scriptures. But even if you stretch these interpretations to "awakened states" and what's not, there is still a leftover. IMO "That which is one in essence" has no intrinsic agenda and no expectations from us whatsoever, it has no likes or dislikes of its own, no rules to impose and restrict the flow of consciousness, and no universal telos imposed on us. "That" does not expect us and does not command us to be perfect ("Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") Yet, we still develop and evolve simply by virtue of natural motivations to avoid suffering and to reach for beauty, knowledge, freedom, love etc which we perceive as being more "perfect" than suffering and confusion. The "perfection" as a spiritual idea is an attraction force that creates dynamics in life, but that does not mean that it's a point of final destination or a universal telos. Even if we are motivated by perfection, there is innumerable number of different paths and ways to envision, express and manifest it. For example, Buddhists have quite different envision of perfection compared to Christians . And regardless of the particular envision of perfection, noone, including "That", compels us or expects us to do this, we are free to do it or not. But the further we diverge from perfection, the more we suffer naturally.

The bold remains merely abstract and unapproachable unless we specify paths by which they can be approached. That is precisely what Anthroposophy does. And it does not rule out meditative-mystical approaches either, but only claims that, by themselves, those approaches are not sufficient, just as, by itself, a merely emotional-intellectual approach to reading Biblical scripture and attending Church is not sufficient.

So, again, I am interested in what you make of the specific claims about the Christian path in the essay. Pick any one of them, either from the thinkers referenced or from my own commentary. Otherwise we remain circling aimlessly about and moving no closer to engaging with the actual process of approaching beauty, knowledge, freedom and love.